Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOTEL AND CATERING SERVICES (SEASIDE RESORTS)

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention to instruct the Catering Wages Commission during the current year to carry out any investigation into the rehabilitation of seaside resorts in the immediate post-war period?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): After consultation with those of his colleagues who are directly concerned in this matter, my right hon. Friend issued a formal direction to the Commission on 15th July directing them to inquire into the effect of war conditions on the hotel and catering services and to review the measures necessary to meet the requirements of the public, including visitors from overseas, in the immediate post-war period.

Captain Macdonald: Have steps been taken to find assessors with special knowledge of these areas to assist the Commissioners?

Mr. McCorquodale: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Sub-Letting

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health, whether he is aware of the serious damage to house property due to statutory tenants letting rooms at abnormally high rents; and how soon may an amendment to the Rent Restrictions Acts be expected which will give some relief from the war-time burdens exclusively suffered by owners of property?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I am not clear what my hon. Friend has in mind, but if he will send me particulars I will look into the matter. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer him to my right hon. Friend's recent statement about the appointment of an Inter-departmental Committee to review the whole field of rent restriction.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: What is the difficulty in this Question that it cannot be understood?

Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. Gentleman asked about "the serious damage to house property due to statutory tenants letting rooms at abnormally high rents." I am not certain what he means about damaged property on that account. If he will let me know, I will look into it.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is the hon. Lady not aware that if a house is overcrowded, the use of it by an excessive number of people, more than it was built to accommodate, must result in heavy repairs?

Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Gentleman had said that overcrowding caused the damage, I would have understood his Question more clearly.

Slum Clearance (Compensation)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health whether he will amend Section 46 of the 1925 Housing Act, which was re-enacted in the Schedule to the Housing Act, 1930, and thereby remove the injustice imposed on property owners by this legislation and also one of the causes which has led to the delay in quickly dealing with slum property?

Miss Horsbrugh: No, Sir, my right hon. Friend is not prepared to introduce legislation to upset the principle embodied in Section 46 of the Housing Act, 1925, which was affirmed by Parliament in the Housing Act, 1930, and re-affirmed in the Housing Acts, 1935 and 1936. My right hon. Friend cannot accept the view indicated in the closing part of the Question.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is not the hon. Lady aware that properties valued under the Act in question have been valued at only site value, whereas a few months previously they were valued for Estate Duty at £2,000 or £3,000 in excess; and are not these methods likely to cause delay in dealing with slums?

Miss Horsbrugh: I realise that the statutory provisions to which the hon. Member refers are that when a house is no longer fit for human habitation it has to be demolished and Parliament has agreed on successive occasions that the valuation shall be the amount of the site value.

Post-War Policy

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health whether the Government post war building policy will provide for all houses, commercial buildings, works and factories being licensed for a period of years not exceeding the economic life of such buildings?

Miss Horsbrugh: A sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham {Mr. Silkin) is investigating this question in its application to houses, and further consideration will be given to this aspect of the matter on receipt of the sub-committee's report.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will the hon. Lady intimate to the Committee that to license property for an economic number of years will remove slum property entirely in future?

Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. Gentleman has put forward a point in which many of us are greatly interested, and if he has any other suggestions and amplifications to make perhaps he will let me have them, and I will hand them to the Committee.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Perhaps the hon. Lady will read "The Rebuilding of Britain."

New Houses and Replacements

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Health whether any estimate can be made of the probable shortage of houses at the end of the war; and the estimate of the additional number of houses which will require rebuilding and reconditioning to bring the accommodation up to the accepted Ministry of Health standards?

Miss Horsbrugh: The total estimate made by the Ministry of the number of houses likely to be required during the ten years after the war is 3,000,000 to 4,000,000. Of this, the larger portion, 1,500,000 to 2,500,000 will be needed to replace slums or houses in a poor condition, or houses which are grossly deficient in modern amenities.

Captain Gammans: How many new houses are likely to be required in that period as opposed to houses needing reconditioning?

Miss Horsbrugh: I have said that the estimate is that out of that number from 1,500,000 to 2,500,000 will be needed to replace slums or houses in poor condition or houses grossly deficient in modern amenities.

Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. Lady aware that 30,000 of those houses will be wanted in West Ham?

Mr. Sorensen: How many will be required to replace houses demolished or damaged by bombing?

Miss Horsbrugh: I could not give the exact number without notice.

Mr. McGovern: Has the Minister considered taking a survey in each area Of the number of people who have no houses in order to get a proper estimate of the need?

Miss Horsbrugh: Surveys have been made, but no housing estimates made for 10 years ahead can be absolutely exact. We think, however, that for England and Wales a figure of 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 in the 10 years is the best estimate we can give at the moment.

Mr. McGovern: My question was whether any attempt had been made by local authorities to get the names of the people who have no houses in order that there can be a proper estimate instead of a supposition.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am afraid that that would not be a proper survey, because so many people are away from the parts of the country to which they wish to return afterwards. Some areas are very over-crowded, and others are not.

Bomb-Damaged and Army-Occupied Houses

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he has records or information of the number of houses damaged by bombing or blast but that could be made habitable; and whether he is in touch with military authorities in areas where there is a great shortage of accommodation, so as to secure, wherever possible, the release for accommodation purposes of buildings now occupied for war purposes?

Miss Horsbrugh: The number of houses damaged by enemy action and unrepaired to date because of the disproportionate quantity of labour and material required is 90,000. 2,750,000 houses have, of course, been first-aid repaired, and over 1,250,000 of these have received extended repairs. Close touch is kept both centrally and regionally with the military authorities regarding the use of housing accommodation for military purposes. If my hon. Friend has any special case in mind and will send me particulars, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the figure of 90,000 to which the hon. Lady refers the number of houses that could be repaired after damage by bombing and not yet repaired? Is she aware that there are many areas where houses are now occupied by the military which, if the troops were transferred elsewhere, would be available for civil occupation?

Miss Horsbrugh: The 90,000 houses are those that could be repaired when there is a larger amount of material and labour. That does not take into account those that are completely demolished or not worth repairing. In reply to the second part of the question, the military authorities are using houses in some parts of the country, but if there are any particular cases about which the hon. Gentleman would like to let me know, we will look into them.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Is it not possible for the Army to accommodate their troops under canvas in order to release these houses for the very much needed occupation of civil workers?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it depends on the locality. In some cases the troops can be put under canvas, but in other cases where they are in towns they cannot.

Mr. Thorne: Do the Department receive from time to time from local authorities the number of houses that could be made habitable?

Miss Horsbrugh: A close register is kept, and it is looked into carefully, of the number of houses that ought to be demolished, the number that are repairable by first aid or light repairs, and those that must wait.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is the hon. Lady aware that there are 50 empty premises up my street capable of being rendered habitable?

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Health whether local authorities in bombed areas and especially in port areas that have been damaged are employing, or have power to employ, local architects and quantity surveyors to assist in planning and supervising the work of repairing and reconstruction, so as to avoid all unnecessary delay at the period when labour and material are available?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir.

Major Lyons: Can my hon. Friend say whether these facilities are being made use of largely by the local authorities? Do all local authorities know their rights?

Miss Horsbrugh: As far as I know, they do. If the hon. Member knows of any local authority that does not know its rights, I shall be glad to inform it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Panel Patient's Death

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the report which has been sent to him concerning the case of Miss Sarah Ann Watts, who summoned a doctor who was unable to attend until after Miss Watts's death; to what extent this failure to attend was due to lack of arrangements made under the panel scheme; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that panel patients shall receive treatment when their panel doctor is called up for national service?

Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend understands that this case will shortly come up for investigation by the appropriate sub-committee of the Devonshire Insurance Committee, and he must await the outcome. Arrangements are already made to ensure that panel patients may receive medical treatment when their doctor is called up for national service.

Mr. Messer: Is the hon. Lady aware of the fact that owing to the calling-up of medical practitioners there are areas of the country where there are no doctors and there can be no arrangements for patients who require treatment?

Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to send me the names of areas where there are no doctors, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will not the Department look into this problem again, because I submitted some time ago the case of a local authority which was getting alarmed because there were very few doctors left in the neighbourhood?

Miss Horsbrugh: I agree that there is a shortage of doctors. We all know that the numbers of doctors required for the Forces is increasing as our Army goes forward. If there is any area in which there are no doctors, I should like to be informed of it.

Radiography Units, Yorkshire

Mr. Muff: asked the Minister of Health how many tuberculosis X-ray apparatus are in operation in the county of Yorkshire; and in what places?

Miss Horsbrugh: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the units for mass miniature radiography now in course of manufacture and allocation to selected tuberculosis authorities. No unit has yet been sent to Yorkshire, but the city of Leeds at present stands next on the allocation list, and another unit will later be assigned to the city of Sheffield.

Mr. Muff: Is the hon. Lady aware of the profound dissatisfaction at the continued neglect of Kingston-upon-Hull, which is a distressed area, suffers under raids, and is in need of such an instrument? Leeds has had one for a considerable time.

Hop-pickers (Accommodation)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Health how many of his inspectors visit and inspect hop-pickers' huts and camps; what material is used for them; what kind of washing and lavatory accommodation is provided; and whether the local health authorities have any obligation to allow the huts and camps to be erected?

Miss Horsbrugh: As the answer is necessarily long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT:
Following is the answer:
The primary responsibility for the inspection of hop-pickers' camps rests with the sanitary authorities of the districts concerned. Before the outbreak of war

two medical officers of the Ministry were engaged on this work throughout the hop-picking season. Under war conditions this close supervision is not possible but in each Civil Defence region concerned, one of the Ministry's regional medical officers visits the camp areas for some days in each season and as far as practicable keeps in touch with conditions. The materials from which the camps are constructed vary; in Herefordshire and Worcestershire adapted farm buildings of brick or wood predominate; in Kent and Sussex, corrugated iron or wooden huts. The washing and sanitary arrangements also vary; in some camps special washing shelters are provided, with running water and hand-filled basins, but ordinarily the water is carried from the camp supply to the living hut. Trench or bucket latrines are ordinarily used. As the camps are permanent erections I am not sure how the last part of the Question arises. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad if he will let we know.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE WIDOWS (REFUND OF CONTRIBUTIONS)

Major Petherick: asked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce legislation under which the widow of a deceased Service man who, before his service, was a contributor under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, shall, if she is receiving a widow's war pension, be entitled to a refund of her husband's contributions or to an additional pension based on the funded value of those contributions?

Miss Horsbrugh: The contributions payable under the Contributory Pensions Acts do not cover the risk of death due to war service, and it is accordingly provided in the Acts that a widow who is in receipt of a dependant's war pension in respect of the death of her husband shall not be entitled also to draw a contributory widow's pension. I am afraid that my right hon. Friend cannot undertake to introduce legislation amending this provision.

Major Petherick: Is it not extremely unfair that in the case of a man killed in action his contributions to the National Health Insurance and other similar schemes are, in effect, confiscated by the State?

Miss Horsbrugh: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member is right in saying they are confiscated by the State. This is an insurance scheme. If the man had died as a worker, then his widow would have received that money. After all, in a great many cases the wife dies before the man, and the hon. Member would not say that because no pension was paid in those cases the insurance company had confiscated the money.

Sir H. Williams: But is the hon. lady not aware that if I insure my life privately for a pension for my widow in the event of my death and my death arises from war service, it is paid in full?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, because the hon. Member in his own case would have covered both, but it is specifically laid down that this scheme does not cover both.

Major Petherick: But in the case where a man has lost his life through serving his country, is it not obviously unfair that his widow should not be entitled to a return of the contributions which have been paid?

Miss Horsbrugh: I would point out that the man has not left the insurance scheme. Even in the Army he is kept in insurance. When men come out of the Army their insurance is still valid for sickness benefits and everything else.

Oral Answers to Questions — REQUISITIONED PREMISES, MERIONETHSHIRE

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: asked the Minister of Health whether he was aware that the requisitioning of certain premises, of which he has been informed, was confirmed by the Welsh local authorities verbally, by telegram and by letter when he gave his approval; and whether, after the premises have been occupied for three years without any requisitioning or tenancy agreement, the owner will be asked to sign an agreement?

Miss Horsbrugh: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." As explained to my hon. and gallant Friend in the course of correspondence and in the reply of the 1st July last to his earlier Question, the circumstances attending the occupation of the premises by the Merionethshire County Council gave rise to some misunderstanding. The position was

made clear to the owner, however, as long ago as September, 1941, and since that time the County Council have continued their earlier endeavours to arrange a tenancy agreement as offering the best solution for all concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR PLANNING (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when he will be in a position to announce the Government's policy with regard to the proposals of the Uthwatt, Scott and Barlow Reports?

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning the results of his close and prolonged examination of the payment of compensation, and the recovery of betterment, in respect of the public control of the use of land?

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am not at present in a position to state when it will be possible to announce further decisions on the recommendations in the Uthwatt and Scott Reports. As regards the Barlow Report, I would refer the Hon. Member to the answer given on 3rd August by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the Hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Mander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the failure of the Government to make up their mind about these Reports is producing alarm and despondency in the country, and can he give an assurance that when the House resumes he will be able to give some clear guidance on these matters?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of my hon Friend's opinion on this matter, but there are other factors in the situation to which I have to pay attention.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that until a policy has been worked out upon the matters dealt with, particularly those in the Uthwatt Report, there can be no town and country planning, and if the Ministry of Town and Country Planning cannot do any town and country planning, what is the use of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning?

Mr. Morrison: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is that a great deal of very useful work in town planning is being done by the local authorities and by my Ministry, and, that being the answer to the first part of the question, the second part does not arise.

Mr. de Rothschild: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those concerned in local government all over the country require some pronouncement on the Uthwatt Report from the Government, and may I ask why the Government and the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry ask for reports if they cannot fulfil them?

Mr. Morrison: I know that, like myself, local authorities are anxious to get on with these matters, but at the same time I should not like it to go out from here that there is no useful work that can be done in the meantime, and I am aware from my personal knowledge that local authorities are putting in a lot of very useful work in town planning.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the delay in coming to a decision on all these matters? What is the trouble? Is it with my right hon. Friend himself or somebody else on the opposite benches?

Mr. Morrison: It is a question of time. There is no delay in the solution of these matters, but they are of a very complicated character, and it is of immense importance that the results which are to be achieved should be founded upon sound policy.

Mr. Keeling: On a point of Order. I beg to give notice that unless the Government's decision is announced immediately after the Recess, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will arrange for the cases of men invalided out of the Services without pension who have died recently to be considered by the new tribunals in view of the impecunious circumstances in which their widows and families are placed?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): My Department will be unaware of the death of an ex-member of the Forces who is not in receipt of disablement pension unless an application for pension is received from his widow or dependant. If such an application is rejected on the ground that death was not attributable to or hastened by war service the applicant will have a right of appeal to the pensions appeal tribunal. Pending settlement of her claim by my Department a widow would be well advised, if her husband was an insured person, to apply for a pension under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Prisoners and Detainees

27. Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India the present number detained; the number now awaiting trial or serving terms of imprisonment for offences associated with political action; the total number of prisoners of all kinds; and why figures for the North-West Frontier Province are not available?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): According to my latest information the number of persons undergoing imprisonment on 1st May for offences in connection with the Congress movement was 23,286, and the number of persons under detention, whether for a short or for an indefinite period, was 12,704. These figures once again do not include those for the North-West Frontier Province owing presumably to delay in reporting the information. My latest figures for the North-West Frontier Province relate to 1st February, when 232 persons were undergoing imprisonment and 413 were under detention (mostly temporarily) in connection with the Congress movement. No figures for persons waiting trial are available. I have no up-to-date figures for the total number of prisoners in India. In 1939 the daily average was approximately 130,000.

Mr. Sorensen: Would the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to obtain fuller particulars regarding imprisonments and arrests on the North-West Frontier?

Mr. Amery: They will come along presently.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the statement recently published by 25 British missionaries in India, of which a copy has been sent to him; and whether the proposals in that statement, including an appeal for an amnesty to political prisoners, have received sympathetic consideration by the Governor-General and His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member will be aware that in his farewell address to the Indian Legislature last Monday the Viceroy made a moving appeal to India's leaders to get together and prepare the way, as the signatories to the statement suggest, for the constitutional discussions that lie ahead. In regard to the suggestion in the missionaries' statement to grant an amnesty to political prisoners who are prepared to follow constitutional methods, I would remind the hon. Member that it was the choice of very different methods, which they have shown no disposition to renounce, that has led to the continued detention of Mr. Gandhi and the Congress leaders.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving any kind of reply to this very representative statement made by Christian missionaries in India?

Mr. Amery: It was made to the Viceroy, and I am not sure whether the Viceroy has given any reply yet.

Mr. Shinwell: How can Indian leaders get together if some of them are in gaol?

Mr. Amery: I referred to the other Indian leaders.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Does the statement of the Viceroy which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted imply that access will be given to Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Rajagopalachari and others to meet Mr. Gandhi in his place of internment?

Mr. Amery: The policy of the Government has been not to give access to Mr. Gandhi and Congress leaders. All other leaders have the opportunity of access for consultation.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of Indian leaders getting together; how can they, if some of them are in gaol? How does he propose that they should get together? Does he propose to release them for that purpose?

Mr. Amery: I thought I had made my answer clear. Every opportunity is given for those leaders who have not committed themselves to an unconstitutional course to get together.

Mr. Sorensen: What possible harm can there be for non-Congress leaders like Mr. Rajagopalachari to have contact with the Congress leaders?

Mr. Amery: In the opinion of the Government it would do harm to encourage them to have further discussions with those who have renounced constitutional methods of procedure.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to leave matters at a deadlock?

Rationing and Price Control

Major Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any further statement upon the introduction, scope and extent of rationing and price-control, respectively, of food and essential commodities in India?

Mr. Amery: Rationing of cereal food is in operation in the City of Bombay and is being extended to other urban areas. The Government of India have the assistance of an adviser with Ministry of Food experience. General rationing of commodities other than food is not contemplated. Various measures of price control have been introduced since the war began and in many cases, as in that of wheat, have had to be reversed owing to the difficulty of securing the necessary physical control of the commodity. The Government of India have just imposed a system of control on the production of cotton cloth, which they hope will greatly reduce the price and improve the supply of piecegoods to the cultivator.

Major Lyons: Would my right hon. Friend consider, in view of the very high cost of things in India and the large number of troops that may well be exploited, recommending the institution throughout the country of a system of rationing and price control?

Mr. Amery: I am afraid the conditions in India are so different from those in this country that that would not be an easy task.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can my right hon. Friend give the House more information about what is being done and con-


templated by him on account of famine conditions? Is he aware that in Bengal thousands of people are coming in from the countryside and living off the garbage heaps of the City of Calcutta? Will he consider telling us what he is doing and what he plans?

Mr. Amery: I shall be glad to give all the information to the House, but my hon. Friend will remember that this matter in Bengal is primarily one for the Ministry of that self-governing Province.

Sir Percy Harris: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about the activities of profiteers? Is it a fact that immense fortunes have been made by private individuals in India and that that is partly responsible for the shortage?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. That is a very difficult problem to handle.

Mr. Sorensen: Have not famine conditions become so bad in India that some people have been reduced to eating new grass?

Mr. Amery: I have not been informed of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMUNIST PARTY

Mr. Frankel: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as a result of the sentence of seven years' imprisonment on a national organiser of the Communist Party for espionage, he proposes to undertake an investigation into the activities of that party in order to satisfy himself that its organisation is not being used for any purpose contrary to the national interest?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The authorities responsible for national security are always on the alert for any activities, whether on the part of individuals or of organisations, which might endanger the national interest. It is the case that at the time of his arrest at Communist Party headquarters in London, Mr. D. F. Springhall was National Organiser of the Communist Party; he had been a member of the Central Committee since 1932 and of the Political Bureau since 1939. He was therefore prominently associated with the

leadership of the Party. But in any case, having regard to the nature and record of the Communist Party, my hon. Friend may be assured that their activities are not overlooked. I do not think any special investigation is called for, but the vigilance of all concerned will of course be stimulated by this case and whenever cause for action should arise I should not hesitate to take whatever course appeared most effective and appropriate in the circumstances.

Mr. Frankel: Does the Home Secretary accept Mr. Pollitt's statement that the Communist Party had no knowledge of the activities which were alleged against Mr. Springhall?

Mr. Morrison: Of course, I was not surprised by that statement. Whether it is true or not, the party would hardly be likely to admit any complicity; but I think the facts speak for themselves, and all people must make their own deductions from them.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the investigations that have been made, will the right hon. Gentleman state frankly to this House how the character of myself or Harry Pollitt compares with his own mouldy character and with that of the disreputable stooge that he put up to ask this Question, to satisfy his malice for his defeat at the Labour Party Conference?

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my right hon. Friend, quite seriously, is he suggesting that the Communist Party are officially responsible for acts of espionage? Has he evidence to substantiate the contention, and, if so, will he produce it?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think there is any need for me to add to the answer I have given. I say again that the facts speak for themselves—

Mr. Gallacher: What facts?

Mr. Morrison: —and everybody can draw his own conclusions.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that this case was tried in camera, is it in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the facts speak for themselves, when it is notorious that if it had been tried in public the prosecution could never have got away with the evidence? It is a dirty bit of business.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSED PREMISES AND CLUBS, LONDON (CLOSING HOURS)

Mr. Reakes: asked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to the urgent necessity for further economy in lighting and fuel, the utilisation of labour for National Service, the protection of the morals of young people and the relief of strain upon police administration, he will consider the advisability of closing licensed premises in the West End and in the Metropolitan areas at the universal time of 10 p.m. and the closing of night clubs at 11 p.m., such arrangements to last for war duration?

Mr. H. Morrison: Parliament, when prescribing in the Licensing Act, 1921, the permitted hours for the supply of intoxicating liquor in licensed premises and in clubs, decided that some discretion should be left to licensing justices, who are acquainted with local circumstances, to fix the closing hour for licensed premises within the limits laid down in the Act. The information I have as to conditions in the Metropolis does not suggest that there is at the present time any sufficient case for taking power, to override the discretion of the licensing justices in the matter of the closing hour.

Mr. Reakes: Is the Home Secretary aware that on Merseyside, for similar reasons to those given in my Question, the licencees have adopted a voluntary system of closing after 9.30 in the winter months? Will he also give us some reason for not dealing with the midnight racketeers in the night clubs? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that they are contrary to our war effort.

Mr. Morrison: On the latter point, the Ministry of Food is involved and has taken action on the matter, but, broadly speaking, I think the position is this: The actual closing hours under the Statute should be settled locally by the justices, in the light of their local knowledge rather than that they should be determined from Whitehall.

Mr. Driberg: Would it not be unwise to take any action which would inevitably lead to the opening-up of hundreds of illicit and ephemeral drinking places?

Mr. Morrison: That is certainly one of the factors that have to be kept in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Children (Employment)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary what measures are taken by his Department, in conjunction with the Board of Education, to see that the bye-laws relating to the employment of children on the land are implemented?

Mr. Astor: asked the Home Secretary the maximum hours and the average hours worked by children of school age helping in agricultural work; the minimum age at which children are employed in this work and what inspection of conditions of employment is in operation?

Mr. H. Morrison: A Defence Regulation made on 30th April, 1942, limits the hours that may be worked in agriculture by school children to 36 in any week and 7 on any day (four on a day when they are required to attend school either morning or afternoon). No child may be employed for more than 4 hours continuously without a break of at least 1 hour. County War Agricultural Executive Committees have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to make every effort to see that children under 14 do not work more than 4 hours a day and to discourage their employment at all until every other source of supplementary labour has been fully used. Actual hours of work vary greatly according to locality, weather and season, and no information is available to enable the average hours worked over any period to be estimated. The minimum age for employment of children is 12 except that a few local authorities have by bye-law allowed the employment of younger children, by their parents only, on light agricultural work. Local authorities are responsible for enforcing the conditions controlling the employment of children in agriculture. I am sending my hon. Friends copies of the circulars issued from the Board of Education for the guidance of local authorities in carrying out their duty under the Defence Regulation. The Minister of Agriculture has asked County War Agricultural Executive Committees to give all the help they can in securing observance of the Regulation.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in spite of all that he has said and the fact that the Regulations are in


operation, they are not implemented at all in some parts of this country, where young children aged eight are employed in agriculture? Would he be good enough to look into the problem if I send him details? Will he also consider another point? Where the local administration in these cases has broken down in connection with prosecutions, what steps can he take to enforce the Regulations?

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend will send me particulars of the cases he says he has, my Department and the others concerned will certainly look into them.

Mr. Astor: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to an answer given earlier this week admitting that in certain parts of the country the situation was far less satisfactory than in others? In these cases will he send his own inspectors into the area in order to make sure that the Regulations are enforced?

Mr. Morrison: My attention has not been called to them, but I will look them up.

Mr. Astor: Will he send his own inspectors?

Mr. Morrison: I will examine that point.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Would the right hon. Gentleman keep in close consultation with the inspectors of the Board of Education and of the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. Morrison: It was all settled between the three Departments perfectly amicably. It is not for me to run the inspectors of the Board of Education, but I know that the President himself is taking a personal interest in the question.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a meeting of the Committee on Wage Earning Children on 28th July regarding conditions in certain parts of Lincolnshire?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Rabbit Traps

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Agriculture the position with regard to the allocation of steel for the purpose of trap manufacture; and whether he is aware that great difficulty is being experienced in exterminating rabbits owing to the heavy cuts that have been made in the allocation of steel?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): It has been necessary for my Department to reduce the allocations of steel for the manufacture of rabbit traps. I am not aware of the serious difficulty referred to in the second part of the Question. Trapping is only one of the methods employed in the campaign for the extermination of rabbits. Other methods of exterminating rabbits are gassing, snaring, ferreting and shooting. The rabbit population has been reduced, and the number of trappers is smaller, so that fewer traps can be handled. I shall be glad, however, to examine any particular cases which the hon. Member may know of in which inability to buy rabbit traps has prevented the extermination of rabbits.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what is the present rabbit population of the country?

Mr. Williams: Plus one.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage to the best of his ability the less cruel methods of exterminating rabbits, such as gassing?

Research (Application of Results)

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Minister of Agriculture what recommendations have been made by the Agricultural Improvement Council during recent months to provide that the results of research shall be applied more effectively on British farms; and to what extent these recommendations have been implemented?

Mr. T. Williams: I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the recent report of the Agricultural Improvement Council, covering the period from its appointment up to 30th June, 1942. The main channel by which the recommendations of the Council reach the farming community is through its Technical Development Committee, which is in close touch with the technical development subcommittees of county war agricultural executive committees. This link ensures that farmers are quickly made aware of new knowledge likely to improve farming practice. A variety of subjects has been dealt with in documents circulated to the sub-committees in recent months. As an example, I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of a circular and accompanying book dealing with the


knowledge recently gained on the subject of trace element deficiencies as a cause of crop failures.

Production

50. Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give the basis on which his Department arrived at their calculation that since the outbreak of the war there were 170 tons of foodstuffs grown in this country for every 100 tons grown prior to the outbreak of hostilities; and whether he will give an assurance that his future policy will aim at the production of 200 tons for every 100 tons grown prior to the outbreak of hostilities?

Mr. T. Williams: The increase of 70 per cent. in the net output of human food from the soil of Great Britain was not measured by weight but in terms of food values. Two calculations were made, one in calories, the other in animal and vegetable protein. Both showed a net increase in the neighbourhood of 70 per cent. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's remarks in the Debate on 28th July.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not imperative, in view of the world shortage of food at present, that the Government should aim at producing more and more food in this country, and is not that an additional reason for having a long-term pronouncement on agricultural policy?

Mr. Williams: That is exactly what my right hon. Friend suggested in the Debate was his policy.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister did not give any answer at all? Did he not say that he was discussing long-term policy? Why is that sort of subterfuge adopted? Is it not deliberate that we should be eternally deceived?

Grain Drying, Warwickshire

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Agriculture why some Warwickshire farmers who had purchased combined harvesters, were refused permission to purchase driers also; and what drying facilities will be available to them for the 1943 harvest?

Mr. T. Williams: There are not enough driers to enable an allocation to

be made to each purchaser of a combine harvester. Centralised drying facilities were expected to be available to certain Warwickshire farmers. Unavoidable delay has unfortunately occurred in the completion of the central plant, but the Ministry of Food have undertaken to make alternative arrangements for the acceptance of the milling grain from the farms concerned.

Sir J. Mellor: Can my right hon. Friend throw any light upon the muddle in regard to the instruction about the Stratford-on-Avon drying plant?

Mr. Williams: I understand that there was no muddle at all: it was a question of labour and the difficulties connected with erection. I can assure my hon. Friend that, in connection with the nine farmers whom he has in mind, steps have been taken to deal with the grain once it is harvested.

Ploughing; Subsidy (Income Tax)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether when originally announcing that the Government would give the sum of £2 per acre as compensation to farmers for ploughing up new ground, it was the policy of His Majesty's Government that such payment would have to be considered as income?

Mr. T. Williams: I have nothing to add to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Excheque to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on 3rd August on this subject.

Mr. Bossom: Has either my right hon. Friend or the Minister ever inferred or stated that this was the policy when the payment was first announced?

Mr. Williams: I am not aware that the Minister, when announcing his policy in May, 1939, or Parliament, which subsequently passed legislation giving effect to the proposals, expressed any views on that subject.

Mr. Bossom: If that is the policy ought not the farmers who receive this money to be so informed?

Mr. Williams: I can only inform my hon. Friend that neither Parliament nor the Minister expressed any views on this point when the matter was discussed here

Mr. Astor: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend has admitted that there


was no consultation at the time between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Treasury, will he see that in future there will be such consideration first, and that it shall be made clear to the farmers whether they are getting £1 or 10s.?

Mr. Williams: Any questions on this subject should be referred to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. De la Bère: If the Treasury have anything to do with it the farmers will not get anything at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT FRANCHISE

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of assimilating the local government franchise to the Parliamentary franchise in legislative proposals to be brought forward on this subject?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. This question will be borne in mind when other aspects of electoral reform are under review.

Oral Answers to Questions — STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary how many stipendiary magistrates sit for the county boroughs with a population of over 250,000?

Mr. H. Morrison: There are eight county boroughs with a population of over 250,000 persons each of which has one stipendiary magistrate.

Mr. Thorne: Does any stipendiary sit for more than one county borough?

Mr. Morrison: It looks, as far as I can recall, as though there is no county borough in which more than one stipendiary magistrate functions. I am saying that from recollection. This answer does tend to confirm that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Rates and Grants

Mr. Lindsay: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has had any formal consultations with local education authorities on the capacity of local rates to bear their proportionate burden of the projected education proposals?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): No, Sir. As my hon. Friend will see from the Appendix to the White Paper, a progressive increase in the rate of grant to local education authorities is proposed. In the distribution of the grant to individual authorities regard will be had to the circumstances of the poorer authorities.

Mr. Lindsay: Could my right hon. Friend give me any indication as to how far above the average figure of 55 per cent local education authorities will be allowed to go under the new proposals?

Mr. Butler: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the circumstances vary so widely in different parts of the country that I would rather give a considered answer to a particular case.

Mr. McEntee: Could the President have prepared a statement dealing with the Part III authorities, so that we may have some indication as to what the extra cost will be under the new Regulations in connection with the White Paper?

Mr. Butler: I will consider what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unless the Government are prepared to find 100 per cent for new buildings they are unlikely to get those new proposals through in reasonable time?

Mr. Butler: I would not like to go into those details at present. Suffice it to say that the whole question of the ability of the authorities to meet the costs of the new proposals has been borne very much in mind.

Special Place Examination

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the welcome given to the proposal to abolish the special place examination he will consider the advisability of introducing this reform at an early date without waiting till the other contemplated changes in the educational system can be brought about?

Mr. Butler: While I am anxious that the special place examination in its present form should be discontinued as soon as circumstances permit, I do not think the change would be justified until all education over 11 is classified as secondary


under conditions which afford a reasonable choice to parents of different types of school.

Mr. Lipson: Does that mean that the fact that certain local authorities have not reorganised their schools under the Hadow scheme is holding back the special place reform, and is there any reason why those authorities who have reorganised their schools should not be given authority to carry out this very necessary reform?

Mr. Butler: I think my hon. Friend had better refer to the terms of the answer which I originally gave him.

Part III Authorities

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Education how many Part III authorities have completed their reorganisation under the Hadow Scheme and how many have not; and will he give the corresponding figures for county councils?

Mr. Butler: As the answer is in tabular form, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lipson: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether Part III authorities or the county councils have been better in the matter of reorganisation?

Mr. Butler: I think my hon. Friend had better study the table I am sending him. He will see that the Part III authorities have done very creditably.

Mr. Lipson: Had he the figures before him when he decided to destroy the independent existence of the Part III authorities?

Full-time teachers in regular employment on 31st March, 1938 (the latest date for which figures are available) in Public Elementary Schools and Practical Instruction Centres maintained by Local Education Authorities—England and Wales.


—


Certified Teachers.
Total number of teachers (All Grades).
Percentage of col. (2) to col. (3).


(1)


(2)
(3)
(4)


Part III Authorities
…
…
22,021
26,238
83·9


Country Councils
…
…
61,900
86,447
71·6

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Savings Certificates (Sales to Employees)

Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the words "all reasonable expenses," on page 3, line 16, of the pamphlet, W.F.L.,

Mr. Butler: I had every relevant consideration before me, including that one, when I came to the decision.

Following is the answer:

England and Wales.

Progress of Reorganisation, 31st March, 1938 (the latest date for which information is available).

Type of Area.
Number of Authorities in whose areas reorganisation was completed.
Number of Authorities in whose areas reorganization was not completed.


Part III Authorities
32
137


County Councils
—
63

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will give, for the last recorded date, the percentages of certificated teachers in the service of Part III authorities and county councils respectively?

Mr. Butler: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the
OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lipson: Here again can my right hon. Friend say which of the two kinds of authorities has the better record, the Part III authorities or the county councils?

Mr. Butler: The answer is set out in the figures which I am circulating. Circumstances differ as between Part III authorities in size and so forth and counties. My hon. Friend will see again that the Part III authorities have a very creditable record.

Following is the answer:

62, Savings Groups in Industrial Firms, have been so distorted that many firms are selling savings certificates to their workpeople at 1s. or more below the face value 15s.; that one inspector of taxes recently said he could allow up to 7s. 6d. per certificate; and whether, as this is in


effect a deduction from Excess Profits Tax and anti-social, he will see to it that the forthcoming Raise the Standard campaign is, in fact, concerned with raising the standard of the general subscriptions?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): An employer's contributions to schemes for the welfare of his employees normally rank as a deduction in computing his profits for taxation purposes, provided that such contributions are not unreasonable in amount. I see no reason for discriminating against schemes in which these contributions are made in order to supplement employees' purchases of National Savings Certificates. I agree, however, that it is not desirable that the totals of subscriptions of savings groups in industrial firms should be inflated by employers' contributions of excessive amount.

Mr. Liddall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when street group canvassers approach housewives with a view to increasing the number of subscribers they are frequently asked, "Why should I pay 15s. in a street group when I can get them for less through my husband at his work?" Is he also aware that in one case a man drew out £375 from the Post Office, the ordinary purchase price of 500 Savings Certificates and took them to his works, bought 500 certificates for considerably less and thus got what he wanted and a nice sum of money to spend to boot?

Mr. Speaker: That is a very long Supplementary Question.

Mr. Liddall: May I have a reply on that?

Sir Irving Albery: Is the Chancellor aware that these "under the counter" transactions in Savings Certificates if they become generally known must have a very serious effect upon public subscription?

Sir K. Wood: I will draw the attention of the savings committees to the Questions and answers that have been given in the House to-day.

Coal Commission (Issue of Stock)

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to raise the sums required to compensate the owners of coal whose properties were vested in the Coal Commission on 1st July, 1942?

Sir K. Wood: In view of the progress of the valuation programme, the time has come for the Coal Commission to raise a substantial part of the money required for the compensation of the previous owners of the coal. In accordance with the provisions of the Coal Act, 1938, and of the Coal Commission Borrowing and Stock Regulations, 1942, the Coal Commission on 4th August, 1943, with the approval of the Minister of Fuel and Power and of the Treasury, issued £35,000,000 of 3 per cent. Coal Commission Guaranteed Stock, 1980–2016, to the National Debt Commissioners, at the price of £97 10s. 0d, per cent. The stock is guaranteed by the Treasury under Section 29 of the Coal Act, 1938.

Mr. Bellenger: How does that issue price compare with issue prices of other gilt-edge Government stock?

Sir K. Wood: I cannot give a comprehensive reply to that Question. If my hon. Friend likes, I will communicate with him, or perhaps he will put a Question on the Paper.

War Widows' Pensions (Taxation)

Mr. Leslie: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider excluding from Income Tax the pensions of widows of Service men who, by reason of their domestic circumstances, with children to support, are employed in war work?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to my replies to similar Questions by the hon. Members for Deritend (Sir Smedley Crooke) and for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) on 24th June, 1942, and 15th April, 1943.

Mr. Leslie: Does the Chancellor think it right that widows of Service men should be penalised in this way while soldiers' wives employed at the same work have their allowances exempt from Income Tax?

Sir K. Wood: This matter has been constantly considered in the House and has been the subject of debates.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES' FUNCTIONS

Major Petherick: asked the Prime Minister which of the normal functions of local authorities have been taken over by the central Government since the outbreak of war; which of these will be


handed back to them after the war; and which of their remaining functions it is proposed to take over?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Apart from the National Fire Service, the only normal functions of local authorities Which have been taken over by the central Government since the outbreak of war are certain functions in relation to agriculture. As regards the second and third parts of the Question, I cannot add to the reply which I gave my hon. and gallant Friend on 29th July.

Major Petheriek: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities are very alarmed at the taking-over of many of their powers piecemeal by the central Government? Is he further aware of the grave fear they have that the vesting of those powers in the central Government will make it very difficult for the central Government not to refuse to hand them back after the war? Could he allay that fear?

Mr. Attlee: As I have explained, the only functions that have been taken over are certain functions in respect of agriculture apart from the Fire Service. I think my reply to-day and the previous reply will do away with those fears of the local authorities.

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether he is aware of the apprehension for the future efficiency of local administration aroused amongst the local authorities by recent modifications and proposed modifications of the responsibilities now entrusted to them, expressed in the memorandum recently published by the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association; and whether he will give an assurance that the effect of such modifications and proposed modifications, as a whole, upon the future efficiency of local administration will be considered by public investigation, or in conjunction with representatives of the local authorities before further changes are made in their existing powers?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. William Jowitt): With regard to the first part of the Question, I have received the memorandum referred to. With regard to the second part, I have nothing to add to to the answer given by the Deputy Prime

Minister to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick) on 29th July.

Mr. Hutchinson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that it is the cumulative effect of these proposed modifications which is causing anxiety? Can he not give some assurance that that aspect of the matter will be investigated before this process of piecemeal modification is carried further?

Sir W. Jowitt: Yes, Sir, I agree with the hon. and learned Member. In considering each of these reforms we also consider its widest aspects and the cumulative effects.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not this bureaucracy at its very worst?

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY COMMISSION'S REPORT (IMPLEMENTATION)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Minister without Portfolio when it is proposed to introduce legislation generally to implement the recommendations contained in the Report of His Majesty's Forestry Commissioners?

Sir W. Jowitt: It will not be necessary to introduce any legislation, save perhaps on quite minor matters, to implement the Report of the Forestry Commissioners unless some alteration in the constitution or powers of the Commission is considered desirable. The proposals for dedication are now under discussion between the Forestry Commissioners and the various interests they have promised to consult; and the Government cannot come to any final decision until these discussions are concluded.

Mr. Dugdale: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the Motion in the names of 50 hon. Members, calling for some early action, and when will the Government be able to announce that some action is actually to be taken?

Sir W. Jowitt: I hope in the not far-distant future, but it is obviously premature to start upon this matter until the discussions which have been promised have taken place.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this constant


reiteration of the statement that the Government cannot take action is becoming rather monotonous?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME GUARD UNIFORMS (COUPONS)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has decided to deduct four coupons from each member of the Home Guard in respect of his Home Guard uniform?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): At this time of the year, my right hon. Friend reviews, in conjunction with the other Ministers concerned, all the arrangements for the surrender of coupons by civilian wearers of uniform. No decision has been taken to withdraw coupons from the Home Guard.

Sir T. Moore: When this matter is being considered, as I understand it is being, will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that such a mean proposal would arouse intense resentment throughout the whole of the Home Guard? Why should any additional burden be placed upon those who give such great service and receive so little consideration?

Captain Waterhouse: I have just informed my hon. and gallant Friend that no decision has been taken, and therefore there is no question of an additional burden.

Sir T. Moore: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind the consideration which I have now put to him?

Captain Waterhouse: It will be borne in mind.

Mr. Driberg: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman going to try to get away with it in the Recess, in the hope that it will be forgotten when the House reassembles?

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF BRITISH SOCIETIES FOR RELIEF ABROAD

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information regarding the constitution and status of the Council of British Societies for Relief of Enemy-Occupied Territories?

Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Council of British Societies for Relief Abroad was formed last autumn at the suggestion of His Majesty's Government by the principal voluntary organisations of this country for the purposes of pooling their experience and co-ordinating their efforts in the liberated countries of Europe and elsewhere. The Council consists of 22 British organisations which have international affiliations. Twenty other voluntary organisations are associated with the Council in what is known as the Standing Conference. Both the Council and the Conference are presided over by the same Chairman (Sir William Goode, Government Director of Relief after the last war) and share the same Secretariat. The Council is the officially recognised body through which the plans and activities of British voluntary organisations can be coordinated and the assistance of the member societies made available as and when needed by the appropriate United Kingdom or international authorities, and it is the hope of His Majesty's Government that any voluntary organisations which are qualified to participate in relief work abroad will apply to join the Council or the Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Catering Establishments (House Charges)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what considerations guided his Ministry in deciding to make the house charges in certain restaurants more than the permitted cost of a meal?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): House charges are intended to meet the excess of inescapable overhead charges in any particular catering establishment over the normal gross profit on a meal sold at 5s. For the purpose of convenience catering establishments, more particularly in London, were classified in groups and house charges for each group were fixed in accordance with the normal excess in that group.

Sir T. Moore: Is it really not somewhat ridiculous to charge more for the surroundings to a meal than for the actual meal itself?

Mr. Mabane: That is a matter to be judged by those who pay for it.

Pigs

Mr. Liddall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why bacon factories cannot accept pigs on a live-weight basis instead of the dead-weight basis as at present; and whether he is aware that the live-weight basis would result in a big increase in the pig population?

Mr. Mabane: I would refer my hon. Friend to the full reply given by my predecessor to my hon. Friend the Member for Collie Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) on 29th January, 1941, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Liddall: Does not my hon. Friend think it time that they should have been able to do something during all this period, and as he himself seems satisfied with the present position, will he state whether he relies upon the information offered by the bacon factories and pays no heed to the representations made to him on the subject by the National Farmers' Union?

Mr. Mabane: The weighing machine position is even worse now than at the time the original answer was given.

Biscuits (Distribution)

Mr. Denville: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the International Biscuit Company of Manchester have to send their biscuits to Maryport, White-haven and Carlisle; Carr's of Carlisle to Northampton; Powells of Preston to Yorkshire; Whittakers of Halifax to Ipswich; and what action he proposes to take to better this method of distribution?

Mr. Mabane: My hon. Friend is misinformed. The firms mentioned in his Question are under no obligation to send their biscuits to the places he mentioned, and in fact three of them do not do so. The towns he specifies are merely towns within the zone to which these firms are allocated. Before zoning all these firms could send their biscuits anywhere from Land's End to John O'Groats. He will see therefore that zoning by limiting the distances biscuits have to travel already represents a great improvement in wartime distribution bringing with it most substantial economies in transport. No improvement by way of further limitation is at the moment practicable, nor, in the opinion of my Noble Friend, desirable.

Mr. Denville: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several letters have been sent to the Member for Central Newcastle referring to the difficulties in sending biscuits to distant parts of the country?

Mr. Mabane: I think the hon. Member does not appreciate that his suggestion means that the zoning should be tighter than it is at present and that, I am sure, would be much against the interests of the firms and against the interests of the country.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is there any difference between sending biscuits from Manchester and the sending of actors and actresses and music-hall artists from Manchester to the same places?

Milk

Mr. Gledhill: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether any arrangements have been made in cases where rationalisation of milk deliveries is in operation to supply the public, who desire it, an alternative to pasteurised milk?

Mr. Mabane: I would refer my hon. Friend to my replies on 12th May, 21st July and 28th July to the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major York).

Oral Answers to Questions — CORNISH TIN MINES (BOYS)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that boys of 14 years of age are working in the Cornish tin mines under very unsatisfactory conditions, pushing trucks which could be mechanically propelled; and whether he will take action to put an end to this practice?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): My present information is that no boys of this age are employed underground in these mines and that those working on the surface are not engaged in pushing trucks, but I am making further inquiries and will, if necessary, communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that work that is being done at the bottom of these pits could equally well and perhaps better be done on the surface, and if I bring items to his notice will he give them his consideration?

Mr. T. Smith: I shall be very pleased to have the information, and I will certainly look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — COALMINING INDUSTRY (NEW ENTRANTS)

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many new courses of training have been established for new entrants to the mining industry?

Mr. T. Smith: The instructions issued by the Ministry are that new juvenile entrants as well as men who choose underground mining employment as an alternative to service in His Majesty's Forces must undergo training on the surface arid underground. The training arrangements have so far been based as an obligation on the individual mine or undertaking, and they vary so much in their stage of development and even in their character that it is hardly possible to express the present position statistically.

Mr. Lindsay: Will my hon. Friend expedite these training courses during the Recess, because it will materially help?

Mr. Smith: They are being expedited as much as possible at the present time, and my hon. Friend can take it that if there is anything that we can do to get these training schemes going we certainly will do it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (WOMEN OF 45–50)

Sir H. Williams: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give an assurance that he will not take any steps to register women between the ages of 45–50 prior to further discussion in the House?

Mr. McCorquodale: No, Sir. In view of the serious shortage of man-power, my right hon. Friend takes the view that it would be contrary to the national interest to postpone the registration of the age classes in question. As, however, the registration of the first of the age-classes concerned will not take place until September, no calling-up action following such registration can in fact take place until after the House resumes its sittings under present arrangements.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the

very widespread perturbation which exists in the country at the idea of this registration and the terrible effect it is going to have on the homes of many people, and will he particularly bear in mind the fact that these women are those who are suffering most from the difficulties of the present time and who most of them have husbands, sons and brothers serving in the Forces?

Mr. McCorquodale: I do not think there is anything very terrible in registration. We have registered over 23,000,000 people in this country since the outbreak of war without any difficulty, and I can give an assurance that there will be no calling for an interview until after the week the House resumes, so that if a Debate is desired, one can be held at that time.

Captain P. Macdonald: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very widespread feeling throughout the country that full use is not being made of the women already called up, and also that Government Departments are full of them, and will he see that full use is made of these women?

Mr. McCorquodale: I am not prepared to accept the accuracy of that statement.

Mr. De Ia Bère: Is it not a fact that Whitehall is chock-a-block with staff?

Miss Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that many women between the ages of 45 and 50 are willing to register for national service provided proper provision is made for cases of real hardship; and that this stunt of agitation against the proposal is not supported by the worthier sections of women's opinion?

Sir William Davison: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the estimate of the Ministry as to the number of women between 45 and 50 who are likely to be employed on war work apart from what they are already doing?

Mr. McCorquodale: That is exactly what we want to find out. At the present time we know that in the four age classes to be registered some 25 per cent. are already in full-time employment. We want to find out whether that employment is, in actual fact, necessary and vital employment and whether any of the other 75 per cent. can join that 25 per cent. either for full or, more probably, for part time.

Mr. Molson: In view of the assurance which has now been given by the Minister that these women will not be called up for service or interview before the House next meets, may we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that an opportunity will be given to the House to debate this matter?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I was proposing to deal with that when I announced the Business to be taken during the week we return. I think it would be probably desirable—and I consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour—that shortly after the House next meets there should be a general Debate on the manpower question covering both this question and allied questions.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Will the general Debate cover the whole manpower issue, including the proposal to recruit boys of 16 for the mines?

Mr. Eden: That is what I meant to say just now.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask a question—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Greenwood—

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of Order. Shall we be precluded, Mr. Speaker, from questioning the Leader of the House on Business as to the proposed Debate which it is suggested should be held after the Recess on the man-power problem?

Mr. Speaker: That depends what the questions are. I think we had better get on with Business, and then we will see.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the Leader of the House to get up on a Question like this and make such a statement, in view of the fact that there have not been complaints hitherto about women of 60 and 70 who are having to work? Why should hon. Members opposite get up now and make this a stunt?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the Business of the House for our next series of Sittings, after the Recess?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The Business for the first week after the Recess will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—A statement will be made on the war situation, and an opportunity will arise for a Debate;
Second Sitting Day—Second Reading of the Water Undertakings Bill [Lords]. This Bill has been held up for some time, and we have to take it soon.
Third Sitting Day—The Business will be announced later.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the Leader of the House when he contemplates that it will be possible to have the proposed Debate on the man-power situation, and, further, whether that Debate will include a review of the use or misuse of manpower in the Services?

Mr. Eden: I do not know about the Services, but my intention was that the Debate should cover both subjects upon which questions have been raised, namely, the recruitment of young men for the coalmines, the calling-up of the new classes of women, and man-power generally. The Debate will be as wide as possible.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the whole question of the use of man-power in the Services is part of the cognate problem of the proper use of the man-power of this country?

Sir H. Williams: As notice has been given for a Debate on the Prayer regarding the Fire Guard Orders for the second Sitting Day of our next series, can my right hon. Friend indicate whether the Debate on the Water Undertakings Bill will take long?

Mr. Eden: It was my hope that there will be time for both.

Sir H. Williams: There can always be time for the Fire Guard Orders, because they are exempted Business, but there was a desire to take them early in view of the general interest.

Mr. Eden: I hope the first Bill will not take very long and that we shall be able to come on to the Fire Guard Orders quite early.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the assurance of the Leader of the House that a Debate


will now take place on the man-power problem, could the question of women aged 45 to 50 be deferred until the House has had an opportunity of registering its decision on that Debate?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, that has already been dealt with. I am not prepared to go beyond what I have said. I must make it plain that it was our intention to have a Debate on this man-power question in any event shortly after the House resumes and also the question of the recruitment of man-power for the mines.

Mr. Bowles: Will the statement on the war situation to be made on the first Sitting Day of our next series of Sittings be debated?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I have already said
So.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: If the House is recalled during the Recess, does my right hon. Friend contemplate our meeting at a different hour from the normal hour?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of this statement regarding the Debate on the war when the House resumes, he will draw the attention of the War Cabinet to the fact that the capture of Orel provides an opportunity for bringing the war to a very speedy conclusion? Further, will he take the necessary action before we have that Debate so that we shall have something to debate, or would he like me to approach the War Cabinet?

Mr. Eden: I would like to assure the hon. Member that the Orel news is grand news for this House to-day, but I think he would also agree that the British and American Forces have made their contribution recently and that we have some confidence that that contribution will continue between now and when we meet again.

Sir W. Davison:: I am not quite clear. Have we an undertaking that no further action in the way of registering these women of 45 to 50 will be taken—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—until the House has had an opportunity of discussing the matter?

Mr. Eden: No, I could not possibly give that assurance. The assurance which has

been given is that nobody will be called up for interview pending the discussion in this House.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is it not perfectly clear that effective registration must take place in the meantime in order that the House may have the facts before them before the Debate?

Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to bear in mind the fact that he has promised that a suitable occasion will be found for this House to debate the war effort of the Dominions, especially Canada?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid I had not that in mind, but I will look into the matter.

Mr. De la Bére: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, immediately after the Recess, an opportunity will be afforded for a discussion on a long-term policy for British agriculture and whether he will lift the silence ban on a discussion of this matter, in view of its importance to the nation?

Mr. Eden: I cannot give any such undertaking.

Mr. De la Bére: Is it not high time that we had a discussion on this matter, which is long overdue?

Mr. Martin: If the House is recalled during the Recess, will there be a Debate on the war situation as well as a Debate on the war on the first Sitting Day of our next series of Sittings?

Mr. Eden: We must wait and see what is the occasion for our recall and whether the holidays hive to be broken into.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. Mack: The House will recall that last Tuesday the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) drew attention to a passage of a speech delivered by me on 30th July in this Chamber in which I was charged with having made an untruthful statement deliberately and one calculated to hurt and harm. Yesterday, the hon. Member intimated to me his intent to raise the matter again to-day. Under those circumstances I felt obliged to take the initiative and bring the matter before hon. Members now. The passage to which exception was taken by the hon. Member was as follows:


It, almost reminds me of the famous interjection of the hon. Member for Mossley—a name which has a curious ring in my ear. He looked round at the Labour Benches and said, 'I look round on my hon. Friends and see in their evil faces the most sinister influence which might affect the status of my class for the future'—or words to that effect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1943, cols. 1986–7, Vol. 391.]
I have since had an opportunity of checking the source of my information, and have discovered that while it is incorrect to say that the hon. Member looked round at the Labour Benches and made the remarks I have mentioned, it is true that the hon. Member was responsible for a far more contemptible and gratuitous insult to the party to which I belong, in a book written by him in 1927 entitled, "Religio Militis." In Chapter V, entitled, "Profanum Vulgus," on page 113, after speaking of the alien blood which has debased our stock in our Northern industrial cities, and referring to Labour public speakers, he said:
These good and true folk will listen with admiration and approval to the crazy wickedness poured forth by some notorious scoundrel whose long and greasy locks frame a countenance upon which each individual, were he not of the crowd, would recognise the brand of cruelty, vice and greed.
Presumably, if my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) feels aggrieved, he can take that matter up himself. Then the hon. Member proceeds in this book:
For my part"—

Mr. Molson: On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member in Order, when making a personal explanation, in quoting from a book, as justification for a statement which he made in this House about a speech?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is certainly in Order in making his case in his own way, so long as he does not bring in anything of an abusive or disorderly character. The hon. Member may, certainly, quote from a book, if he thinks that to do so will help him to prove his case.

Mr. Mack: The hon. Member for Mossley, in this book to which I refer, proceeded:
For my part I cannot look upon the evil and foolish faces of some of the leaders of Labour without a sense of deep humility. How greatly must we capitalist employers have

neglected our duty if the workers choose to follow not us their natural leaders but such men as these.
I have always endeavoured to show the utmost courtesy to all Members of this House and would indeed be loath to misrepresent anyone. In so far as I stated that the remark in question was made in this House, I unreservedly withdraw that assertion, but it will be equally conceded that the hon. Gentleman has, in substance and in fact, written and thus placed on permanent record a most unworthy sneer at Labour leaders, and I trust that the sense of deep humility which he then felt at the neglect of the working class to choose him as a natural leader will characterise his utterances in the future.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: This House has rarely listened to such an exhibition as it has just heard. The hon. Member admits that his statement is utterly false from beginning to end, and then he has not the decency to apologise.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Geoffrey Lionel Berry, Esquire, commonly called the Honourable Geoffrey Lionel Berry, for the County of Buckingham (Buckingham Division).

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, without Amendment.

REGIMENTAL BADGES AND TRADITIONS.

Mr. Loftus: On 13th July I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War the following Question:
Why the cavalry regiments, which now form part of the Royal Armoured Corps, are not allowed to wear on their uniforms their regimental badge or name, as this decision has caused great dissatisfaction to these regiments with their individual traditions and long roll of battle honours?
My right hon. Friend replied as follows:
These regiments are now part of the Royal Armoured Corps and follow in this matter the practice in other corps such as the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers. Personnel may, however, wear a flash in the colours of their particular regiment and they may wear a regimental cap badge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1943; col. 9, Vol. 391.]
There were several supplementary questions, and obviously the matter aroused great interest among the many hon. Members in this House. Therefore, I gave notice that I would raise the matter on the Adjournment. Since I gave that notice I have had a certain amount of correspondence urging me to proceed with it. I would make it clear at the outset that I propose neither to attack the War Office, nor to attack my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In all sincerity, I can say that I believe his administration of the War Office to be a very fine achievement, worthy to rank with the great administration of Lord Haldane. I believe that the nation and the Army owe my right hon. Friend a deep debt of gratitude for the organisation of our present magnificent Army, which is achieving such great results throughout the world.
I raise this matter for two reasons, first, to give my right hon. Friend an opportunity to amplify his reply and to get from him certain assurances which I am sure he is prepared to give and which will remove certain apprehensions and misgivings undoubtedly prevalent to-day. What is the position? I refer in my remarks not to units overseas on active service, because I understand that there are no distinguishing marks worn on battledress. I refer to units serving at

home, and the position concerning them is as follows: All infantry units wear their regimental titles on the shoulder, with the exception of the Highland regiments. The Highland regiments were given the choice between continuing to wear their regimental titles, and wearing the tartan, and they chose the tartan. Cavalry regiments now incorporated in the Royal Armoured Corps have been forbidden by an Army Council Instruction to wear their regimental titles. Instead they wear the "R.A.C." of the Royal Armoured Corps.
These cavalry regiments have great historic traditions. Many go back 250 years and even longer. They have a long roll of battle honours, recalling famous periods in history. Many of them can show honours gained in the great battles of Marlborough's campaigns—Ramillies, Oudenarde, Malplaquet, Blenheim—in the battles of the Peninsular war. Every unit is proud of its regimental record and traditions and wishes to maintain its regimental identity. That is the point at issue and the point on which these fears are expressed. It is true that the answer of my right hon. Friend is to the effect that they can wear the regimental cap badge at their own expense. They can also wear a flash with the regimental colours. I suggest that the wearing of a flash is really no concession. I will give an instance of what I mean. If I see a man in uniform with the title "Scots Greys," or "Greys," on his shoulder, it recalls a memorable regiment with a tremendous tradition and great roll of battle honours, including the historic charge at Waterloo, with the Highlanders hanging on to the stirrups immortalised in the famous picture "Scotland for ever." It also recalls the charge of the Heavy Brigade at Balaclava, more memorable and more useful than the charge of the Light Brigade. But, if I see a bit of colour on the sleeve or shoulder, I do not know what it means, and I doubt whether there is a Member in the House who recognises it unless he has served with that distinguished regiment and who can tell to-day what the colours of the Scots Greys are. All ranks are proud of their traditions and record, and keep certain days of the year which are, as it were, regimental festivals.
There is also a practical consideration. We have to think not only of the war but of the post-war years, and one of the problems is that we will have to obtain fully qualified officers making the


Army their life profession. We shall have difficulty perhaps in obtaining these, for you cannot conscript officers. Neither the French nor German armies could do that. The financial inducements offered for service in the Armed Forces have always been inadequate. I fear that this may remain so after the war. Moreover, there is always the risk that a man who has devoted all his life to his profession may turn out at about 40 years of age without any training for earning his living in another profession. Therefore it is of practical utility that there should be this regimental tradition and that young men should go into these regiments because their fathers and grandfathers served in them. That is a point that we must consider in the post-war years.
These complaints that I have received come not only from the Cavalry but from the Yeomanry. Take my own county and the Suffolk Yeomanry. They were formed in 1793. They have been in existence exactly 150 years. Now they have become gunners and are incorporated as part of the Royal Artillery. They are forbidden to wear their regimental titles, and they wear "R.A."—Royal Artillery. I have received complaints from all ranks in the unit that they wish to wear their regimental titles. I admit that many individuals in that regiment now do not now come from the county of Suffolk, and I regret it. I think it is due to the pressure of war, but I think it is desirable to draw attention to it. There has been a tendency—I expect it is inevitable under the pressure of war—to draft men into county units from quite another part of the country, even when men in the county are available and want to get into the unit. The Gloucestershire Yeomanry had a waiting list of, I believe, 400 who wanted to join the county regiment. They had an extension of the establishment, and they asked that 120 of that 400 should be allowed to join. The 120 were sent from Durham. I am sure the Gloucestershire Yeomanry would far rather have had Gloucestershire men, and the Durham men would far sooner have gone into that fine county battalion the Durham Light Infantry. I have heard of other instances. I know there was an atmosphere in the last war in the War Office discouraging the Territorial and the county spirit. I think it was due to a defect in knowledge of that very great

man, Lord Kitchener, to whom we owe so much, but owing to his life having been spent out of England he did not realise how much the county spirit mattered and therefore tended to ignore it. I hope none of that atmosphere still lingers around the portals of the War Office. What we ask is an assurance that these famous county regiments, especially after the war, shall not lose their identity by being absorbed in the Royal Armoured Corps but shall continue in their distinguished Corps as separate units, in the same way as before the war each cavalry regiment was regarded as a separate unit of the Corps of Cavalry of the Line.
My second reason for raising this matter is to utter some words of warning about our post-war Army and to seek an assurance from the Secretary of State on matters applicable to cavalry, yeomanry and also to infantry battalions. It is the same principle, the maintenance of tradition, that is at stake. There are ideas abroad in all walks of national life in this and many other countries in all departments of life of merging the smaller individual units, the crushing of individuality, forcing everything into big, uniform undifferentiated masses. But mankind, the individual human being, is so formed that he wants small associations to which he can give his full interest and loyalty. I know these measures are defended and advocated on the ground of efficiency. I am not sure that they are not advocated because they give less trouble to officialdom. It is so much easier to classify an undifferentiated mass, a uniform mass, than a lot of differentiated, highly individual units
The text of my remarks could be found in words used by the Secretary of State on Tuesday in the Debate on the V.A.D. I wrote down his words:
It is no good seeking uniformity if you sacrifice other things worth having.
I beg my right hon. Friend to act up to that magnificent text. We have so much uniformity to-day. We have uniform utility furniture and uniform utility clothing. I hope that after the war we are not going to have a uniform utility Army, with all the units indistinguishable and interchangeable, all distinguishing marks gone, the Highlanders, for instance, no longer allowed to wear the kilt. I hope we do not sacrifice such valuable things in the


name of efficiency, because it will not make for efficiency. It is rumoured that there are abroad to-day ideas that units of the post-war Army under conscription should be interchangeable as in the Royal Artillery. There are rumours that esprit de corps should literally mean loyalty to the corps and not to the regiment. It is even rumoured that certain views have been expressed that the only title allowed to be worn after the war should be "R.A."—Royal Army—in the same way as "R.N." for the Royal Navy, that all units should be interchangeable, personnel moved from one unit to another, county distinctions abolished, and so on.
The Royal Navy tradition is a very great tradition. It has been in existence for 400 years, and it is a living thing. It incorporates great memories of the past, and above all it seems to incorporate as it were the living spirit of Nelson which makes our Navy in fighting efficiency immensely superior to any other. It is one of the most valuable of our national possessions. The Navy, however, also has individual devotion to a ship, and there is great rivalry and competition between ships. The traditions of the Army have been built up in a different manner on the regimental unit, and its traditions which count for so much. That is what I wish to emphasise. In the last war, as an example, although we recognise that the British infantry as a whole was magnificent, there was a special quality about the Guards. They have a great regimental tradition that however desperate the situation they never fail. That is due partly to their discipline, but that very discipline of the Guards is part of their regimental tradition, and it has been shown in all our campaigns past and present. When a Guardsman has gone through the mill of hard training he becomes part of a living organism and continuous community, and he will take the tradition with him throughout his life and remain in touch even when he returns to civil life. That living community spirit fortifies and inspires men in the hours of stress and danger in battle.
So it is with all our regiments in the Army in varying degrees. Let hon. Members think what tradition means to the Gloster Regiment. They have two cap badges, one in front, one behind, commemorating their action in the Battle

of the Nile when the French cavalry attacked them front and rear and the rear ranks turned round and beat them off. Think what that tradition means to the Gloster Regiment. Suppose this happended again in this war, and they were attacked front and rear. They would feel, "This has happened to us before, and we then won. We can beat them off now and we will do it again." That is one instance of regimental tradition, and I will give many others. The Suffolk Regiment, in which I served, fought in the battle of Minden in rose gardens and wore roses in their caps. I remember in 1915 they appeared in regimental orders that the men could wear roses that day when they walked in the town where there was a whole division. It was a fine sight to see these Suffolk lads each with a rose in the cap swaggering through the streets. That sort of thing does them good and makes them better men and better soldiers. I hope that these regimental traditions will be maintained. I plead that we should keep and cherish the separate individualities of our regiments—cavalry, yeomanry and infantry. While I recognise that during war we must make many sacrifices and give up many distinctions that we have won I ask my right hon. Friend to give an assurance that after the war we shall do our utmost to maintain these old traditions. It may be said that after the war we must have very revolutionary changes in the organisation of the Army. We see during the war those revolutionary Changes in process of coming into being, and we realise that sacrifices must be made. It is, however, the glory and the strength of our people and a cause of admiration and envy to foreign nations, that we have always made drastic and, indeed, revolutionary changes within the old framework and in accordance with our own national traditions, thereby securing the general consent of our people and incorporating in the necessities of the present the experience, the wisdom and the enduring loyalties of the past.

Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Making: As my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) has raised this question on the Adjournment, I feel that I cannot remain silent, belonging as I have done all my life to the oldest and best of these old cavalry regiments of the line. I say the "best" because we all think our own regiment is the best.


That is one of the strengths of these regiments, because we all believe it and all try to keep it so. Belonging to a regiment that was raised in 1661 for the defence of Tangier, and which has been in every great engagement since and has badges which have been given to it on the field of battle, one naturally feels very jealous that all these regiments, not only one's own, should be kept in being and not allowed to lose their identity. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft raised this matter some three weeks ago. Some time before that many of us old cavalry soldiers got together and talked about what we thought was happening. When my hon. Friend asked this Question I felt that I must ask a Supplementary to clear up the situation. I asked:
May I take it that it is not the policy of the War Office gradually to destroy the individuality and identity of these old cavalry regiments?
I got the answer:
Yes, Sir, that is the case, but"—
there is always a "but" to bring in a little snag—and qualify the affirmative—
but they have been transferred for some years past to the Royal Armoured Corps."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1943; col. 9, Vol. 391.]
That may be so. Some have been in the Royal Armoured Corps for some years and some only very recently. But there is no reason why if a regiment belongs to a corps it should lose its identity. My lion. Friend the Member for Lowestoft mentioned that before cavalry regiment's were armoured there was a corps of the Cavalry of the Line and before that a corps of Dragoons, Hussars and Lancers, but there never was any idea of them losing their identity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also said that they would follow in this matter the practice in any other corps such as the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers. I do not think there is any real parallel; by the way they do not call themselves a corps; they call themselves the Royal Regiment of Artillery. My right hon. Friend also said that "it solves the difficulties of a very difficult problem." I think that the War Office are making very heavy weather about this matter. I do not see that it is difficult. Take an instance. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) is in the Brigade of Guards. They are much more like the Royal Armoured

Corps than the Royal Artillery. They have their several regiments, their several battalions and their armoured divisions. They are much more like a cavalry corps than we are like the Royal Artillery. I believe that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield knows a brother officer of his who presided over a committee which advised much more drastic changes than those that were recommended eventually. I can quite imagine what would have been felt if a cavalry officer had presided over a committee of this sort and had advised something similar in regard to the Brigade of Guards to what my hon. and gallant Friend's brother officer's committee advised for the cavalry. I do not know what language he would have used, but I think he would have gone up in smoke.
It seems to me that some of those people at the War Office Who are sometimes looking out for something to do would look over the Army List, They would see a regiment called the both Rifles, now called the King's Royal Rifle Corps. They would probably say, "Why are they calling this a corps? We must do away with it. It is not a corps but a regiment." If they looked a little further, they would see the Rifle Brigade mentioned. They might say, "This is not a brigade; it is only a regiment. This won't do at all" I fear that there are many in the higher ranks who may belong to some of these corps and who are absolutely corps-minded without any knowledge of the traditions of the regiments, whether cavalry or infantry. There used to be some years ago a salutary rule that when an officer had been on the staff for some time he should go back to his regiment and get a little less staff-minded and not so much up in the clouds of theory, sitting on a chair in an office, so that he could be brought back once again to the ground of practical common sense. I believe that the A.C.I. states that the rules therein laid down are for use "at home during the period of the war." We hope that is so and that at the end of the war we may settle things more satisfactorily.
Some people think that this is a small matter in a great global war, but if we are tampering with the fighting qualities of our regiments, I do not think it is a small matter. I would have been contented at this juncture to accept the assurance of my right hon. Friend that there is no


intention of the cavalry regiments losing their identity, and I am sure that he will agree with that in principle. I cannot help thinking that there have been among cavalry officers certain grounds for the despondency and alarm which have been created by certain people. I should like to emphasise that some people think it is only the officers who take this view, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that the other ranks feel just as strongly about it as the officers. A regiment is a regular family. Sons follow their fathers arid their grandfathers, not only in the ranks of the officers but among the other ranks as well, and I should like it to be laid down very strongly at the present time that if anyone, officer or man, has strong family claims to go into a certain regiment it should be his right to go there, and that it should not be left to the whim of the posting officer. No doubt there are certain people to whom one would have to apply the bit-rein and take away their spurs—possibly to-day they would not understand that phrase, and I had better say throttle down and put the brake on—but there are people to-day who do deride the traditions of regiments.
I came across an instance of it some weeks or months ago. In "The Times" one morning there was an announcement that two new regiments were being formed, called the Highland Regiment and the Lowland Regiment, and there was a reproduction of their two badges. This rather mystified me, and I asked a friend what it meant. He said, "They are not two new regiments as you and I understand them but they are intake regiments for recruits from the Highlands and the Lowlands." But what scared me was what he said afterwards. "And this will do away with all this damned nonsense about Black Watch going into the Black Watch, Camerons into the Camerons, and Gordons into the Gordons." Does that mean that that is the opinion at the War Office, because if there is a school Of thought of that type the sooner they are told where they get off the better? People are stupid, and worse than stupid, if they think it is for the good of the Army to break down the clannish spirit of the Scots or for that matter the traditions of the English regiments, the Welsh regiments and the Irish regiments. The whole esprit de corps of the Army is based on

the traditions of the regiments and all their, distinctions over many years. We must preserve all their little idiosyncracies, their badges, their emblems, their slight distinctions in dress, the historic honours they have won in different battles through the centuries. This esprit de corps of our regiments is the envy of all foreign armies, and I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will give us the assurance that if there are some staff officers who are ignorant of these traditions, are, in fact, not only unsympathetic but are antagonistic to them, they will be told that that view cannot continue any longer. We owe a great deal to these regiments, and, if I may make so bold as to say so, I think that you, Mr. Speaker, do not feel that your gallant service in one of these old cavalry regiments has been unhelpful to you in your career, and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would, I am sure, also be one of the first to admit that the time he spent in one of these great old regiments has not come amiss in his career either. There is a more classic instance, which I am sure my right hon. Friend will remember, in a great historian's autobiography, in which he wrote:
The discipline and evolutions of a modern battalion gave me a clearer notion of the phalanx of the Legions, and to have been a captain in the Hampshire Grenadiers—(the reader may smile)—has not been useless to the historian of the Roman Empire.
That is one of the well known classical instances. I would ask my right hon. Friend, and I am sure he agrees with me, to do his best to see that the great traditions of these old regiments, cavalry or infantry, wherever they are, are preserved as long as the British Army exists.

Colonel Arthur Evans: I rise to support the eloquent appeal which has been made to my right hon. Friend by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir E. Makins) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), but I propose to base my appeal on a different ground. My two hon. Friends have addressed themselves to the aspect of the situation as it affects historic cavalry regiments. I should like to deal with the Royal Artillery and in particular the Royal Artillery of the Territorial Army. In 1937, my right hon. Friend will remember, as a result of an appeal


made by his predecessor the right hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). the Welsh community were asked to see what they could do to bring about the formation of a London Welsh Regiment. The local authorities were consulted, and a Committee was set up under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to obtain recruits, to raise the necessary funds, to provide a drill hall and the necessary amenities, and to start a regimental fund. These efforts were successful, and in July, 1939, the then Secretary of State for War attended a function and congratulated the Welsh nation and particularly London Welshmen on the success of their efforts. At that time, after considerable correspondence and negotiations with the War Office, the authorities concerned approved a shoulder flash "London Welsh," which has been worn continuously from the formation of the regiment until recently, when Army Council Instruction No. 905 abolished that right. As I am informed, heavy anti-aircraft batteries of the Royal Regiment of Artillery are still organised on a regimental basis, and I cannot for the life of me appreciate what particular administrative embarrassment is caused to the War Office and the Army authorities if these men when posted to this particular regiment of artillery are allowed to enjoy the privilege of wearing their regimental title on their shoulders.
The Welsh people are perhaps peculiarly sensitive on this point, as they realise that two other particularly distinguished Territorial regiments in London, one known as the London Irish and the other as the London Scottish, both regiments which have distinguished themselves with great gallantry in the late war and in this war are still allowed to wear their regimental title. They happen to be infantry regiments, and so, under the Army Council Instruction to which I have referred, they are not required to dispense with their regimental titles, but poor gallant little Wales is penalised. Having regard to the fact that regiments of the Royal Artillery of the anti-aircraft commands are still organised on a regimental basis, I think it might be possible for my right hon. Friend to reconsider the decision of the War Office and amend the Army Council Instruction in such a manner as to allow the privilege to con-

tinue to be enjoyed by the London Welsh.
I will not address myself to the general arguments in support of the principle involved, because not only have they been referred to already, but they will be present in the mind of any hon. Member who has had practical experience in the field as a serving soldier. I do not think it is possible to over-emphasise the value of esprit de corps and regimental spirit at the present time. Owing to the necessities of modern war, we have one type of uniform. It must be admitted that battledress has had a tendency to do away with a certain amount of regimental pride. We recall in the old days the pride of a soldier even in his khaki Service dress sporting his particular regimental insignia, but it is very different now, and I feel that in the difficult times we have to face anything which we can do to encourage that sense of pride and honour in their regiment will go far to ensure victory for our arms in the coming great battles.

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton): I should like to reinforce what has been said about the regimental spirit, although it is unfortunate that when people talk about it they are using the French phrase esprit de corps, which gives rather another feeling. At the beginning of the war the War Office and a great many staff officers had an opinion, I think, quite contrary to that which has been expressed to-day. I think the Secretary of State has a different opinion, although when he replied to a Question on 13th July he made an unfortunate remark which I hope he will explain a little further. He said:
It is necessary at times to compromise between tradition and the facts of the case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 59.43; col. 9, Vol. 391.]
I fear that ever since 1940 the War Office have been trying to compromise with tradition. Let me give the House one or two examples. Among those who came back from France in 1940 there were certain first line Territorial battalions. I am thinking in particular of one which had fought extremely well in France and came back from Dunkirk. Then came the War Office scheme of making a Reconnaissance Corps. There was no objection to that battalion joining the Reconnaissance Corps, but having joined it they were stripped of their Territorial


senior officers, they were stripped of all emblems to show that they came from a particular county, and everything was done to damp down that Territorial tradition which had won fine victories both in the last war and in this war. A sad part of the case was that by this loss of tradition their training was delayed tremendously. They atoned for what they had lost in the dust of battle on 27th May, when they were wiped out. That battalion would have been in action far earlier if the War Office had not dictated this new policy that tradition was not to count. When I went out to the Middle East with my formation in 1941 we found rampant there a view among high staff officers that divisional traditions and regimental traditions counted for nothing at a11. I rather think that the senior officers were surprised to find that there was a formation coming out who believed in advertising the fact that they were a formation and had a great tradition. Time passed, and by the time we got back to ElAlamein the lesson had been learned and the divisional tradition of the 50th and 51st Division had taught those in command and the staff in Cairo that what wins battles and what turns the tide in the last difficult stress of battle, is this regimental and divisional tradition. I hope when the Secretary of State comes to reply he will show that he realises that the greatest exponent of the regimental tradition today in the British Army is General Montgomery. When he took over the Eighth Army he insisted that everybody should recall his regimental tradition, and he made what is more, something very fine of the Eighth Army tradition of the Crusaders' Cross, which is visible wherever you go in the Eighth Army.
I am dealing merely with the infantry. I understand that the present position is that infantry battalions, and especially infantry in depot, have been wearing in their regimental colours the numbers of their regiments on their shoulders. The East Yorkshires would have the number "15" in cerise on their shoulders. This has the advantage of identifying the regiment and also the regimental colour. Under the new Army Council Instruction, an infantry regiment will be allowed to wear the name of the regiment on their shoulders but not in their regimental colours, but in the colour

of what is called now the Corps of Infantry. I submit that that is not a satisfactory way of retaining the regimental tradition. If it is a question of expense, I am certain that those who believe in the regimental tradition, including ex-Service men and certainly the officers and other ranks of all units, would help to defray the cost of getting the regimental titles in their own colours.
I think the position is stronger since the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the 60th and the Rifle Brigade can have their shoulder titles in their regimental colours, but no other infantry regiment can do so. If I am wrong, I hope he will correct me. If it is right for the 60th and the Rifle Brigade, is it not also right for every other regiment of the line? It is a great mistake for the Secretary of State to make a distinction between one regiment of the line and another. The 60th and the Rifle Brigade have played a great part and have done most glorious work in this war, and nothing that I say must be taken to detract from their credit for what they have done, but other regiments of the line have also done very fine work in this war. All should be treated alike.
I asked the Secretary of State on 13th July a Question, to which he replied that beside these shoulder titles, the soldier
may in addition wear a flash in the regimental colours and a regimental cap badge."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1943; col. 12, Vol. 391.]
That is not satisfactory. What they ask for, and always have asked for, is either that it should be the number of the regiment, like the "15th" or the "19th," or that it should be the name of the regiment in the regimental colours on the shoulder titles. In my short experience I have found that those who were keenest on this question of shoulder titles and the regimental spirit were not the officers, but the N.C.O.'s and other ranks in the regiment. I think hon. Members would find that is a general experience.
I should like to touch on one other point raised by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), and that is the question of the drafts from the depot. I do not understand why it is necessary for the intake at a depot not to be drawn from the neighbourhood of the depot. I appreciate the difficulty that must necessarily come in war when it may not be possible to have men from Durham going


to a Durham depot or Yorkshire men going to a Yorkshire depot, but I do not see why you should not at least get North countrymen going to a North country depot, Welshmen to Welsh depots and West of England men to West of England depots. I am informed that that is not happening at the present time, and I hope that the Secretary of State will look into the matter and try to secure an alteration. I hope he will do his best to get the team spirit retained in the Army. To my civilian mind the whole object of military training is to take a collection of men and form them into a unit. It is not only a question of technical skill in arms, but is, first and foremost, a matter of the spirit that will endure in battle.

Major York (Ripon): I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) and to bring the Debate back to the actual point of controversy, which is that arising out of my hon. Friend's Question about cavalry regiments. I do not think it will be divulging military secrets if I give the battle order of the Royal Dragoons in this House and say that the charge was led by the colonel of the regiment and was backed up by myself, a humble member of that regiment, but it is to cavalrymen a very great grievance if in any way those regimental traditions are to be taken away. It is not only on the battlefield that the cavalryman and others who are keen upon their regiment are anxious to defend the honour of the regiment. Battle honours were not only just won on the battlefield. The battlefield produced the name, but it was all that went before that was responsible for the conduct, bravery and general high level of training. It was all that was worked into these units during the period of peace.
There is one way in which the system—and it is a system—is worked. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Peters-field (Sir G. Jeffreys) will know that the Guards had the same system. We use regimental history and regimental traditions to drill into our men the fighting spirit that has gone before for centuries. My regiment was first founded 280-odd years ago, and ever since then the officers, warrant officers and N.C.O.'s generally have used the history, the badge and every sort and kind of tradition to drum into the men that they must live up to that tradition. Even on the drill square,

and, until two years ago, in the riding school, in my regiment it was the deeds that had gone before that were held up to the men. When an N.C.O. or an instructor was taking a man to task for idleness or any other point, he would say:?"Now then, Trooper So-and-so, you are letting down the regiment. You are letting down the badges that you wear.?" If we are going to alter things, we shall he doing something which is indeed a great blow to those traditions.
It might interest my right hon. Friend to know that when in the early part of this war I was engaged in helping to train cavalrymen, one of the great difficulties we had was to prevent the men under training from going out into the town and buying a regimental badge, because at the time we did not know which regiment they were going to. Suddenly, on parade, you would see two or three dozen men who had a general service badge the day before, say, wearing the badge of the Royal Dragoons or the badge of the Royal Scots Guards. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of this point. There is strong objection from the officers and men of these cavalry regiments to being permanently lost sight of in a corps, which contains very gallant units no doubt, but units which have only a short history and little tradition. It is understandable for in the Army corps there are two distinct types of soldier. There are the tank battalions on the one hand and the cavalry regiments on the other. Both have done magnificently during this war but they are both used in different ways and in different types of formation. Even on the ground of efficiency it is very questionable whether the two should be lumped together under the name of the R.A.C.
There is one last point. The right hon. Gentleman will know that in the A.C.I. which caused this Debate there was definite recognition tint every single infantry regiment in the country was to have its tradition and its name maintained. Every single regiment was set out in an appendix, and the whole of those gallant old cavalry regiments were lumped together on one line as Royal Armoured Corps. My regimental motto is "Spectemur Agendo" which means "Let us be judged by our deeds." Let me give my right hon. Friend a slightly different interpretation. "Let us be recognised by our actions." If we cannot be recognised, we shall do away with


those marks of recognition which we have borne so proudly and so long over the centuries that have passed.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I also rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus). In doing so, I should like to revert to one word which was said in his speech, and that was when he placed the blame on Lord Kitchener in the last war for the lack of recognition of regimental tradition and for the system that a man is a man and a regiment is a regiment, which then prevailed, and which I fear is prevalent now. I would like to assure my hon. Friend that I believe he is mistaken in putting that imputation upon the memory of Lord Kitchener.

Mr. Loftus: I want to get this point clear. I suggested that it was due to Lord Kitchener's living his life out of England and therefore being out of touch with the Territorial spirit.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I am afraid that the spirit I complain, of prevailed in the Adjutant-General's branch of the War Office and the staff long before Lord Kitchener became Secretary of State. It was flourishing before his arrival, and although it was not encouraged or given so much chance as it was in later days, it certainly was there. My hon. Friend remarked about having a war badge "R.A." for Royal Army. The first time I heard that suggestion was from a very senior and very distinguished staff officer in the very early days of the last war. I believe it is an entirely unsound idea. I believe it is the idea of the office soldier as opposed to that of the regimental soldier—I was going to say of the fighting soldier, but I will not say that—and I would emphatically agree with all my hon. and gallant Friends that the British system is based on the regimental system. If we were forming a new Army entirely, it might be sound to start with one badge "Royal Army" with everybody exactly the same, but the British Army is a very ancient Army and has been built up on the traditions of the various regiments in the Army. None have higher or more splendid traditions than the British cavalry. I have not the honour myself to be a cavalryman, but I have none the less had the honour of having the regiment of which my hon.

and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir E. Makins) is colonel under my command, and various other cavalry regiments, and I yield to none in my admiration for them, for their spirit, for their efficiency and great traditions. I hope that some concession will be made in this, as I see it, comparatively small matter to the War Office, but very important matter to the regiments concerned.
I would like also to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft said about the Territorial units. The Territorial units nearly all belong to a county regiment, and I would say that their tradition is entirely or almost entirely of the county. They have the uniform and the badges of their county regiment, but that county regiment had a history before it was identified with the county. If you could post recruits or drafts to the Regular battalions, they could very likely absorb the tradition of a Regular regiment, but if you send, for the sake of example, Welshmen or Northumbrians—I mention those two because they both produce magnificent soldiers—to, shall we say, a battalion of the Hampshire or the Berkshire Regiments, they have no feeling whatever for the county from which those regiments derive all their tradition and pride, and these form a very great part of their efficiency. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford both mentioned the Brigade of Guards. It is not for me to attempt to sing the praises of the Brigade of Guards here, but I would say that it is not only on their discipline that their efficiency is based; it is on their spirit, their morale, and it is discipline combined with that high morale that really makes a great regiment. It is no good merely having discipline. Some foreign armies have a very strong discipline and perhaps have not the morale of the best regiments of the British Army. It is discipline and that high spirit that make for real efficiency. It is not only applicable to the Brigade of Guards—I believe they are an example of it—but to all the great regiments of the British Army.
The cavalry regiments have been, as we have been reminded, absorbed in the Royal Armoured Corps. I can see no reason why they should not retain their identity, although they are in the Royal Armoured Corps, any more than there


was a reason why they should not retain their identity, as indeed they did, when they were regiments in the old Corps of Hussars, the Corps of Dragoons, the Corps of Lancers, and so forth. I think it is of the utmost importance that they should, retain their identity, and I would remind my right hon. Friend of what I believe he will find to be the case, if he will make inquiries, as I feel certain he has already done, that the cavalry in the Royal Armoured Corps are in many ways the most efficient tactically because they have their cavalry spirit and high mobility and high tactical efficiency and quick action, which in the nature of things the men of the more newly formed heavy armoured regiments have not got in the same way. I believe that, for that reason alone, it is very necessary that the cavalry should retain their identity.
I would only say one more word about the cavalry tradition, and that is to reinforce what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford about the fact that the Prime Minister was a Regular cavalryman, imbued with the cavalry spirit and a first-rate cavalry officer. 1 cannot say—I have no right to say—but I feel certain that I know what the Prime Minister thinks about any attempt to put the cavalry regiment in a general hotch-potch, with, I will not say mediocrity, but a general hotch-potch, in which there would be no regimental distinction and no regimental tradition remaining and no outward or visible sign of it. I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to granting these cavalry regiments, and as far as possible all other regiments, Territorial regiments, the right to retain their distinction and their badges which they have won so well, and which their efficiency justifies so fully.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): I think perhaps it will be a good thing if I remind the House of some of the difficulties with which the War Office has had to contend on the "A" side in the last three years. I dealt with them at some length in my Estimates speech, but I am afraid that hon. Members have forgotten some of the things I said then. Therefore I make no excuse for dealing with them again, for I sometimes think that an insufficient appreciation of those difficulties is at the root of accusations I hear that the War

Office is quite impervious to all that concerns regimental traditions and esprit de corps. In February last. I said:
The House will remember that in the months immediately after Dunkirk, when the defence of the coast line and vulnerable points all over the country was the primary necessity, new intakes into the Army were predominantly disposed as infantry and a large number of new infantry units were formed. As the immediate crisis grew less acute, the first preparations were undertaken for the ultimate return to the offensive. Some of the infantry was converted to armour, some of it to artillery and some of it was used to provide the ever growing signal requirements.?
I also said that this whole re-organisation had been carried out against the background of man-power shortage. I went on to say:
No more than any other service or branch of the war effort has the Army been allotted all the men it believes it needs. In the earlier part of the war it was equipment that was short. Now that equipment is available in vast quantities we cannot get all the men we want. The demand for men is insatiable.?"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1943; col. 330, Vol. 387.]
That has not become any less true in the six months that have gone since I first said that. The character of the war is continually changing. We have had to prepare for new kinds of war, and we are constantly having to switch between infantry and other arms. Moreover, the incidence of casualties has been quite different from what was expected as between the different arms.
Another consideration, taking into account the geographical distribution of the population available for military service and in the historical county regiments, it is quite clear that it is not always possible, in some cases not ever possible, to fill these up with men from the appropriate part of the country. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) seemed to find some deep-laid plot against the county regiments here in that men were not always enlisted through their own depots. I thought I had explained in my Estimates speech that primary entry was into a primary training centre, and that it is only after they have been to that that men go on to their corps training or infantry training. It is at that stage that we try as far as possible to allocate men to the county regiments of the part of the country from which they come. I explained, though, that it was not by any means always


possible to choose people so that they could go to the regiments of their neighbourhood, and that quite often it was not even possible to fill the county regiment from that part of the country. It has been a constant feature of this war; it was a constant feature of the last war. There is no geting away from it.

Major York: Is it not possible for the primary training centres only to take from their immediate regions, and would not the men therefore go there naturally?

Sir J. Grigg: No, it is not in the least possible, because the object of the primary training centres is to sort people out according to their aptitude, not necessarily to allocate them even to their corps. These are the facts of the case which produce the necessity of compromising which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton made such heavy play about. It is not the War Office who are compromising, even though he complained that I had said something about compromising between the facts of the case and traditions. It is not I who produce the compromise, it is the hard facts which produce the necessity of compromising.
It is from those hard facts of the case from which have come the breaches in what we should like to do, and it is from those breaches that this feeling has grown up that the War Office no longer care for tradition and esprit de corps. I must say that I have been very sensitive on these matters, but I am a little reassured from the recollections that some of the hon. Members older than myself have brought forward that exactly the same thing was going on in the last war, and exactly the same accusations were being made. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) talked about some mysterious principle, some mysterious love of uniformity on the part of officialdom. Having been an official myself, I should pretty certainly have known if there had been any love of uniformity on the part of officialdom. I must say that I have not noticed it. If it had been there, I have learnt enough in the last 15 months of the strength of feeling in this House and the Army against this sort of deadening spirit of uniformity not to have taken on my shoulders more trouble than was necessary. I personally have seen no sign of this neglect or hatred of tradition and

esprit de corps on the part of the War Office. I have not the slightest doubt that some mistakes have been made. Members have produced to me from time to time instances where there has been great stupidity in posting people to the wrong places. It is only natural that that should happen, and most of the instances have occurred under the stress of the rapid need for reinforcement of units cut up in actual fighting—I do not say all, but most. My general intention is to preserve tradition and esprit de corps to the maximum extent that the hard facts of the case make possible. Let me come to the Army Council Instruction which is being attacked.

Mr. Loftus: May I—

Sir J. Grigg: May I make my own case? As it says on the face of it, this Instruction has as one of its objects the fostering of esprit de corps. Hon. Members have reminded me that it says "esprit de corps," and not "esprit de bataillon" or "esprit de compagnie." There was a second object: to put an end to the vast multiplicity of badges and signs which battalions and companies, and even units and sub-units, got into the habit of assuming. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] There was abundant reason why they should not. Most of them were unauthorised, and many were ridiculous. I suppose that I am the only person who has seen a complete album of them. It was extremely frightening to see the extent to which separatism had developed in the matter of signs and badges, and how far down it had gone. It was clear that the team spirit had been abused. I have seen the whole album, so I am not speaking without being informed on the subject. As I said the other day, in my replies to supplementaries, to which some exception has been taken, I claim that the very careful plan which was drawn up is the best possible compromise that we could devise between the previous system of a few very special shoulder badges and the esoteric and separatist variety that we were rapidly getting into. The badges were allotted on a corps basis. In this connection, greatly daring, I will go so far as to claim that each infantry regiment of the line, with its separate badge, is for these purposes a separate corps. Similarly, the Royal Artillery, the Royal Engineers, the Royal Signals, the Royal Ordnance Corps and so on, are separate corps. Members have talked about the


Royal Artillery as if there were no analogy between that and the Royal Armoured Corps. But my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Colonel A. Evans) made the point that the London Welsh is a separate regiment, although it is part of the Corps of Artillery. The main shrines of Welsh military tradition and valour are the three Welsh infantry regiments, which wear their separate titles. There is no doubt that the Royal Armoured Corps is one corps. On the other hand, it has separate components. The Royal Tank Regiment and the old cavalry regiments have preserved to a very considerable extent their identities.
When the plan for the original amalgamation was drawn up before the war the Committee which drew it up, presided over, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir E. Makins) pointed out, by a Guards officer, expressed the view that when war came it would be necessary completely to merge the cavalry regiments and the Royal Armoured Corps. In the meantime, however, they were to retain their separate badges and titles and their separate lists, so far as officers were concerned. Other ranks were enlisted into the Royal Armoured Corps, and not into the cavalry regiments. The war produced these difficulties in this scheme of amalgamation, which was drawn up—I will place all the secrets of the charnel house before the House—in 1938. Two years ago the question of a complete merger was brought forward, but after careful consideration it was rejected. But it was decided that the first entry of officers, as of other ranks, should be into the Royal Armoured Corps, and not into separate regiments, and that reposting on special employment could be anywhere within the corps. That is the present position. Naturally, in reposting, every attempt is made, and I think successfully, to take account of the original homes of officers, so as to preserve the regimental tradition and their individual association with it as much as possible. In these circumstances, and at a time when, as I have pointed out, the Army Council were reviving shoulder titles, for service at home only, for the period of the war, with the dual purpose of fostering esprit de corps and preventing what I might call fantastic separatism of subunits, I think that, for this purpose, and for the purpose of these titles only, it was right to treat the cavalry units as part of

the Royal Armoured Corps. At the same time, the retention of the regimental flash and the old regimental cap badges was decided upon. What distresses me about this Debate is that some Members have thought that this whole business was in pursuance of a deeply-laid plot to effect a complete merger of the cavalry regiments into the Royal Armoured Corps and to abolish their identity. I have no such desire. I am not looking for trouble; I have no intention of trying to disturb the solution of a contentious and difficult problem. Indeed, I claim that what I have done is entirely in harmony with that solution.
I end where I began. I am no foe to tradition and esprit de corps. I am certainly not engaged in a deeply-laid plot, designed to undermine them. Indeed, I will do my utmost to preserve them to the maximum extent that the hard pressure of war allows. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft says, "What about postwar?" I cannot project myself into that great unknown. All the same a great deal of thought is being devoted to the kind of Army we shall need after the war. In the description and fears of what is going on in the War Office, as made by the hon. Member for Lowestoft, I do not recognise anything I have seen. [Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Member for Peters-field (Sir G. Jeffreys) said that he had it from a very high staff officer in the last war: perhaps that is where it came from. I am clear about one thing, that esprit de corps and the regimental spirit will play in the, post-war army a part not less important than it has done hitherto.

Mr. Turton: Why are the Rifle Brigade allowed to have shoulder titles of their own colours, while other infantry regiments are not?

ARMY FAMILY ALLOWANCES (STOPPAGES)

Captain Cobb: I informed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War during the week-end that I proposed to raise certain matters arising out of Army Council Instruction 440 of 1943, which deals with the stoppage of family allowances, the procedure for attempting to effect reconciliation between a soldier and his wife and action to be taken by welfare officers. I am quite sure that when the War Office published this A.C.I., they did it with the best possible


intention. Their intention was to provide effective machinery for dealing with these difficult cases which arise when a soldier and his wife are not hitting it off as they should, but it is unquestionable that, however good those intentions were, the A.C.I. is not operating as the War Office intended. Probably the most offensive thing one can say about a human being is that he means well, because the implication is that he does not succeed in what he sets out to do. I have no doubt that the War Office meant well when they drafted this Instruction, but their intentions are not working out as they desired. This Army Council Instruction, in my judgment, works unfairly, both to the man and to his wife.
If my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry (Major Manningham-Buller) is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir, he proposes to deal with the Army Council Instruction as it concerns the soldier. I propose to deal with it from the wife's point of view. A case came before our local bench during the Whitsun Recess, when I was sitting as a member of the bench. This case made me realise that there was something very wrong with the War Office regulations. There was an application by a wife for a court order against her husband, serving in the North of England. This soldier had enlisted a few weeks before the war began. On enlistment, he disposed of his house in Essex, and his wife went to Sussex and rented a small cottage in one of the villages. She received a dependant's allowance of 39s. a week. Very early in the soldier's service there was some trouble about another woman. The wife appears to have behaved extremely sensibly, and this trouble blew over; but about a year ago this soldier, who seems to have been extremely susceptible, formed an attachment for another woman. He told his wife that he wanted her to divorce him, so that he could marry the other woman. The wife, being very sensible, and knowing what an emotional creature her husband was, refused. Her view was that this would blow over, and that after the war they would be able to continue their married life. The soldier came on leave several times, and continued to press his wife to sue him for divorce, and she refused to do so. The soldier then informed his commanding

officer that normal domestic relations with his wife had ceased, and that he wished to stop her allotment. The commanding officer then put into operation the machinery provided under this Instruction and the county welfare officer caused investigations to be made. In due course, the wife received a questionnaire from the regimental paymaster or from Records—I am not sure which—and was asked to it in. She did so, and returned it to the source from which it came.
A few weeks later she received notification from the regimental paymaster informing her that they had considered the evidence—whatever the evidence might have been—and that the paymaster was satisfied there was no case whatever for imposing compulsory stoppages upon the husband, whereupon the dependant's allowance was stopped, and for nine weeks that wife, a perfectly blameless woman who had gone out of her way to make a new home for her husband in a Sussex village, was left without any means of subsistence whatever except for a few shillings a week which she received from the education authority for work she did in connection with the village school canteen.
The soldier in question appeared in court, and he made it clear that he had no complaint against his wife whatever except that she bored him. She bored him so much that he would very seldom stay at home during the whole of his leave and that he would return to his unit before his leave was up rather than continue staying with his wife. It is obvious that the soldier had no idea at all that he was under any obligation whatever to maintain his wife. It is perhaps understandable when a man is away from home for a very long time that he should, at times, form undesirable associations, but it is a most extraordinary thing that the War Office, as is evidenced by the case I have quoted, appears to approve of a soldier divorcing himself from all his responsibilities to his wife, and appears to approve also of a woman being left in this deplorable condition.
The War Office is, unconsciously I am sure, deliberately encouraging lax behaviour. It states in the Army Council Instruction that family allowance is an emolument of the soldier himself and is granted to him in order to assist him in meeting his family obligations. The


War Office in this particular case—and I do not suppose for a moment it is an isolated case—have assisted that soldier in ridding himself of his family obligations. We hear criticisms of every kind about the War Office, but I have never heard it suggested that they were the kind of institution that encouraged immorality or lax behaviour and in view of the facts which I have quoted I am entitled to ask for an assurance that the War Office will see to it that this kind of case can never happen again, and that a woman who is a good wife to her husband and who has nothing whatever against her moral character should not be left destitute as this woman was. It is surely not too much to demand that the War Office should continue the payment of these family allowances until the woman has applied for and obtained her court order. The soldier must be made to understand that no matter how fickle he may be he has a duty to his wife, and the War Office ought to insist upon his fulfilling that duty.

Major Manningham-Buller: I rise to follow by hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb), because I feel that there are other aspects revealed by this Army Council Instruction which deserve serious consideration. The object of the A.C.I. is stated at the beginning, and with that object no one can quarrel. The object of this procedure is to ensure that every possible effort is made to effect reconciliation between husbands and wives before the wife's allowance is stopped and to prevent her home being broken up owing to temporary estrangement or insufficient cause. When one goes on right through the rest of the A.C.I., it reveals a state of affairs which wants remedying as soon as this can be done. It is said, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston stated, that the basis on which family allowance is paid is that it is an emolument to the soldier himself and is granted to him in order to assist him in meeting his family obligations. If one were to pause there, one would be entitled to assume that the family allowance would continue to be paid so long as the soldier remained under a legal obligation towards his wife and family. One only has to read on to find out that that is not the case at all and that this family allowance granted for this specific purpose is only paid while normal domestic relations exist and ceases to be

payable on a cessation of normal domestic relations as defined in the Army Council Instructions. That definition is as follows:
Normal domestic relations must be assumed to have ceased to exist as soon as either party has decided not to live with the other party in the same home together at any time in the future and when reconciliation under this A.C.I is held to be impossible. Normal domestic relations may therefore cease even if no formal deed or other separation document is drawn up and though divorce proceedings are neither contemplated nor instituted by either party. A quarrel resulting in a temporary estrangement does not constitute a cessation of normal domestic relations.
My hon. and gallant Friend has given one instance of how the Army Council Instruction works, and I would ask the House to consider two other cases of how it works. Take the case where a wife is petitioning for divorce against her soldier husband on the ground of his adultery. That is clearly a case where normal domestic relations have ceased under the terms of the Army Council Instruction. What is the effect of that? The family allowance upon which she is probably dependent is stopped, and for a period which may be long and of hardship which may be acute she is deprived of this family allowance. It is true that she can go to the court and apply for alimony pendente lite, but a considerable time must elapse before she gets it. If she gets it, what is the position? The soldier no longer gets the family allowance, and in order to meet an order for alimony it has to be paid out of his pay. He probably cannot meet it at all, and so he cannot provide for his wife and she is left unprovided for. That is a complete contradiction of the statement at the commencement of the A.C.I. that the family allowance is an emolument to the soldier himself, granted to him to enable him to discharge his obligations towards his family.
I will give a further illustration of how this works. Supposing a soldier hears that his wife has been guilty of mis-behaviour, it is his duty under the Army Council Instruction to report the fact to his commanding officer, and then after some inquiries have been made that this may result in the allowance being stopped. What happens then? The wife can go to the police court and take out a summons for maintenance and it will be for the soldier to prove that the wife had been guilty of adultery. It may be impossible for him to attend the hearing of the court


and for him to get evidence to prove the wife's misconduct, and if he fails in either of these things an order will be made against him. Again the position arises that he will have to discharge that order out of his pay and he loses the benefit of this family allowance.
I ask that this should be carefully reconsidered. The principle should be that the family allowance should continue as long as the legal obligation to maintain the family exists. It is nonsense to say that the position of a wife is the same as it would be in civil life. In civil life no employer can reduce a man's pay on the ground that he has ceased to live with his wife, nor should the Army Council decide to do so either. The pay should continue while the obligation exists, and it is not right that this cumbrous machinery should be introduced to give a contrary effect. Why should a wife suffer because of this Army Council Instruction and why should a soldier be deprived of this part of his pay because of these rules?
I ask the House to consider also the position of the soldier under the Army Council Instruction. The burden is put upon him of reporting a cessation of normal domestic relations. He has not only to report that but also to report if he has any strong reason to believe that they have ceased and he is told in the Army Council Instruction that if he does not report it he will be subject to disciplinary measures and liable to repay any over-issue of allowances. I wonder how a private soldier can keep free of trouble under that heading. He is bound to report a quarrel leading to a temporary estrangement, but how is a soldier to know whether a quarrel between him and his wife is going to lead to a temporary estrangement or to a permanent separation? If he decides wrongly, he may find himself having to make repayment. He is always in the dilemma that, as long as the issue of the allowance does not depend upon the continuance of the legal obligation, if he reports to his commanding officer, he loses his family allowance and still may have to provide for the maintenance of his family out of his pay, and if he does not report that he is subjected to disciplinary measures. I ask that this matter should be reconsidered and made plain and straightforward and that a soldier should not be put into this position

any longer and that wives should feel that as long as the legal obligation exists on the part of their husbands to maintain them, they will continue to receive their family allowances.

Mr. Bartle Bull: I should like to support what my two hon. and gallant Friends have said, and in the view of any sane man of age who reads this Army Council Instruction it should most certainly be revised. In fact, having been looked at afresh with some degree of enlightenment directed towards it, it should certainly be altered. It has always been wrong. The soldier, for instance, is not paid enough. Then we get to what we see in this particular Army Council Instruction. Soldiers in the Armed Forces are at present inarticulate. Unless hon. Members of this House or others attempt to look after their interests there is nothing that they can do now. I can assure hon. Members that a lot of these soldiers will have plenty to say to a lot of us after the war is over, and I think a good deal of it will be justified. The soldiers realise that plenty of money is being made now in all walks of civilian life, and yet it always happens that the State seeks to economise at the expense of those in the Armed Forces. They can say and do nothing about it now, but I assure the House they most certainly will after the war is over. I beg of my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office to try and get his Chief to go into this Army Council Instruction again in order to have it properly and thoroughly amended.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull), who has just sat down, will forgive me if I do not follow him into the realm into which he has just sought to take the House by referring to the question of soldier's pay. The specific point to which my attention has been directed by the other hon. Members who have spoken is with reference to the position in which the wife of a soldier finds herself in the unfortunate event of her becoming separated from her husband. As regards the particular case to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) referred, I want to be quite frank with the House and admit that there was a slight hitch in the normal machinery. The soldier expressed a wish to stop his quail-


fying allotment from his pay. In the normal way reconciliation was attempted, but it failed, and it was at this point that the paymaster concerned made an error. According to the procedure, he should have sent a letter to the wife telling her that the family allowance and allotment must cease under the rules and setting out the courses open to her, namely, either taking the case into court or appealing to the deputed officer—that is the Officer i/c Records appointed under Section 145 of the Army Act—to decide whether, in accordance with the provisions of the Army Act, the soldier had deserted or had left his wife in destitute circumstances without reasonable cause, in which event it would have been the responsibility of that officer to order a deduction from the soldier's pay. Instead of sending this letter, the paymaster recalled the wife's allowance book, thereby automatically stopping payment of her family allowance and referred the case to the deputed officer. As the hon. and gallant Member told the House, the case eventually found its way into a court of law, but as a result there was a gap of a number of weeks during which this unfortunate woman did not receive any family allowance. I can only express my regret that as a result of this error this occurred, but at the same time I do not accept the suggestion which was put forward that because of this particular incident the A.C.I. is not, in general, working fairly.

Mr. Mathers: Were the arrears repaid?

Mr. Henderson: No arrears would be payable, because from the time the information was received that the husband was no longer having normal relations with his wife the family allowance ceased to be payable. The object of providing an appeal to the deputed officer is to bring into operation other machinery, under which an allowance is paid to the wife but which is not in the nature of a family allowance. It is really a stoppage of pay imposed upon the husband, but in view of the fact that he is not in a position to pay an amount equivalent to the recognised sum of the family allowance, the difference is made up by the War Office.

Mr. Mathers: My hon. and learned Friend seemed to indicate a failure on

the part of the War Office to deal with this case in the proper way. Surely, then, it was the responsibility of the War Office to see that this woman did not suffer.

Mr. Henderson: That may be so. I am quite prepared to look into the question as to whether payment should be made to cover the number of weeks which elapsed between the failure of the appropriate officer to send that information to the wife and the date upon which the court order was made.

Commander Galbraith: Are the Regulations so framed that there is no possibility of a gap existing between the stoppage of the family allowance and any other payment which is arranged?

Mr. Henderson: If the hon. and gallant Member will be patient, I will endeavour to explain the procedure. The hon. and gallant Member for Daventry (Major Manningham-Buller) is quite definitely under a misapprehension as to how the machinery in relation to this subject works. He seems to be under the apprehension that where a wife has to go to court and a court order is made, that, having regard to the remuneration of a soldier in the Army, it would, in most cases, be quite impossible for him to pay the amount ordered by the court and that consequently the wife has to go without. Perhaps the House will allow me to explain the system that operates in dealing with this particular problem. It is quite correct to say that under the A.C.I. referred to it is the duty of the soldier to report to his commanding officer when there is a temporary estrangement. That is because the basis of this arrangement is that the payment of family allowances, although they are regarded as an emolument of the soldier himself, is made to him in order to assist him in meeting his family obligations. In the event of a separation, where the husband decides that he is no longer justified in contributing to the maintenance of his wife, the War Office does not accept any obligation to give him that part of his remuneration to meet the obligation he has repudiated.
When the information is received by the Army authorities that there is an estrangement between a soldier and his wife, the welfare authorities are then instructed—and it operates in every case—


through the local welfare officer, to endeavour to secure a reconciliation between the husband and his wife. According to the circumstances of the case, that takes from a week to three months. During that period no interference is made with the payment, week by week, of the family allowance. It continues for all that period, whether it is for a week or for three months. It may interest the House to know that as a result of this machinery in between 10 and 20 per cent. of the cases that have come to the notice of the military authorities attempts to secure reconciliation have been successful. But in the event of a reconciliation being unsuccessful, then the wife is informed of her rights—it broke down in this case—and is informed that she can either take her case to the court in the same way as in civilian life, or can appeal to the deputed officer, who is, as I have said, the Officer i/c Records appointed under Section 145 of the Army Act or the officer in charge of records. If she does that—and it ought not to take more than a few days—he has power to impose an obligation on the soldier to pay an amount equal to the family allowance payable when the soldier and his wife are living together.

Major Manningham-Buller: Would not that be a qualifying allotment?

Mr. Henderson: The deputed officer has the right—to take the case of a wife without children—to order payment by the soldier of a sum totalling 25s., composed of a payment of 18s. to the wife herself, plus 7s. The State finds 21s. 6d. and the soldier 3s. 6d. allotment. Under a compulsory order, assuming it is 25s., the soldier still continues to pay 3s. 6d., and the balance is found by the Government. To that extent, therefore, the wife is in no worse position than she was before the estrangement took place. If, on the other hand, she prefers to go to the local police court and make out her case that she has been deserted by her husband, then, in the ordinary way, according to the rules of procedure, an order will be made for the husband to pay, it may be, again, 25s. a week. Then the same result ensues. The man is expected to pay his 3s. 6d. as before, and the War Office finds the balance. Again, in that case the wife is no worse off than she was before her estrangement from her husband. I think

the House will agree that this system is working equitably from the wife's point of view. It is quite correct to say—

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Appropriation Act, 1943.
2. Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943.
3. Nurses (Scotland) Act, 1943.
4. Restriction of Ribbon Development (Temporary Development) Act, 1943.
5. Foreign Service Act, 1943.
6. Emergency Powers (Isle of Man Defence) Act, 1943.
7. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1943.
8. Coal Act, 1943.
9. Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1493.
10. Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act, 1943.
11. Northampton Corporation Act, 1943.
12. Cardiff Corporation Act, 1943.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

ARMY FAMILY ALLOWANCES (STOPPAGES)

Mr. A. Henderson: My hon. Friend asked me if I would deal with the gap that occurs in a number of cases between the cessation of the payment of family allowance and the securing by the wife either of an order made by the deputed officer under Section 145 of the Army Act or, alternatively, by a court of law. In the case of an application to the deputed officer, in a very great majority of cases there need be no delay having the effect of penalising the wife, but I admit that in the case of an application to the court there might be in some cases a delay of a week, or even a month, and in extreme cases possibly longer. As I understand my hon. Friend's intervention, his argument would be that in those cases the payment of family allowance should


continue, at any rate until an order is made either by the deputed officer or the court of law. We have endeavourer; to close the gap in cases that come under the jurisdiction of the deputed officer, and, even though it has not been found possible to make contact with the soldier to hear his side of the case, in April last, by a Statutory Rule and Order, power was given to the officer deputed by the Army Council for the purpose by Section 145 (2) of the Army Act, if it appears to him that a prima facie case has been made out for the making of an interim Order against the soldier to make an order for such deduction and appropriation of pay, not exceeding the amount set out in Section 145, to take effect pending the further examination of the case. That means that Whereas prior to the making of this Order, where it was not possible to make a final decision, in the meantime the wife was deprived of her means of subsistence and was not entitled to the family allowance—the husband might be here or in India or in some other part of the world—there is now power to make an interim order, and it has had the effect of protecting the interests of the wife in a considerable number of cases.
As regards cases where it is not possible for the wife to have her case determined by a court of law within a reasonable space of time, I am quite prepared to consider the point to which my hon. Friend has referred with the object of ascertaining whether it is possible to bridge the gap. I cannot take it further than that, but I will undertake to examine the problem. I hope I have removed misapprehensions with regard to the way in which the system operates, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Daventry and Preston will, in the light of what I have said, acknowledge that, whatever ground there may be for improvements, the A.C.I. to which they have drawn attention certainly does not operate unfairly so far as the wife is concerned and that, broadly speaking, under the system that operates to-day in cases where husband and wife are estranged the War Office has established machinery which enables their officers to deal sympathetically, and in the vast majority of cases expeditiously, with cases that come to their notice. Where there is weakness in the procedure to

which attention has been drawn, I will gladly re-examine the position with a view to effecting any improvements that may be practicable.

Mr. Mathers: We have been given to understand that the wife's position is protected. Is it not possible for the soldier to rid himself of his obligation to make the 3s. 6d. allotment by nominating the other woman to receive it?

Mr. Henderson: That is not possible. The dependant's allowance, which would be the only allowance that could be paid to a woman who is having relationships with a soldier, is not payable unless the person concerned was being substantially maintained by the soldier prior to his having joined the Army and for a period of at least six months. If it is a case of a liaison which has been contracted since the soldier joined the Army in no circumstances will he receive any assistance from the War Office to maintain her.

Major Manningham-Buller: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider whether the family allowance should not be continued in the case where the wife petitions for divorce from the date the petition is heard instead of stopping it automatically when a petition is served on the soldier? It serves no useful purpose in view of the machinery we have been told about and it would save a lot of trouble.

Mr. Henderson: I am not prepared to enter into any commitments, but I will include that question in the examination I am making.

WAR AND PEACE

Mr. Rhys Davies: The problems I wish to discuss have no relation to any of the questions which have so far been raised. The first thing I have to do when I speak on the issues of war and peace is to make it clear that I do not speak for the party to which I belong. I have been in the House for 22 years; I was almost born into the Labour Party and have been a member of it all my life, and I have preached the same gospel that I intend to propound to-day ever since I have been in public life; and although I am 65 years of age I shall continue to preach the same gospel as long as I live. I would like a reply from the Government bench to some of the


remarks I shall make although I do not press for that to-day. Perhaps a note will be taken of what I say and I hope a reply will be forthcoming in due course. I want to challenge the whole philosophy of war as an instrument of policy. If I had the right that I have here in Germany, in Japan, Russia, China or the United States I would stand up and make the same protest against war irrespective of the consequences. I have travelled too much and lived too long to be influenced by propaganda, during war-time in particular. I have met kings, statesmen, politicians and diplomats in many countries. Indeed, I have met some people abroad who were once regarded in this country as unfit members of the community but who became in due course very popular with the very people who used to condemn them. I am sure that there are hon. Members here to-day who remember the time when we dined with Mustapha Kemal Pasha in Constantinople. We hailed him then, some years ago, as one of the finest gentlemen of the East. I recollect, however, when he fought and defeated us in the Dardanelles that he was regarded as a low down scoundrel just as we regarded most of the Bolshevik leaders before Russia was attacked by Germany.
There have been a few Members of this House from time immemorial who have taken the view that I take about the issues of war and peace. The late John Bright, I believe, stood up in the House and opposed every war in which our country was engaged. I take very much the same line. If wars could settle problems for mankind, the human race ought to have reached the New Jerusalem long ago. In fact, wars create many more problems than they set out to solve, and I predict now that this war will fall into exactly the same category. When the historians ten years hence come to record the history of this period, they will stand aghast at the fact that there is hardly a soul in this Parliament to make a protest against spending the substance of the nation as we do in passing what is called the Consolidated Fund Bill. I have been here long enough to hear the Prime Minister of the day telling us that we must tighten our belts when he reduced the unemployment benefit rate by 2s. a week at the instance of the American Federal Reserve Board. The more we spend of

the nations' substance on war it stands to reason that the less we shall have to build on reconstruction when peace comes. What about sanitation, water undertakings, housing, school teachers and the like? When this war ends the present proposals on education, the Uthwatt and Scott Reports will be of little avail. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will then stand at that Box and say that there is no money left to undertake any of these desirable things. The House of Commons passes £1,000,000,000 this week almost without a murmur, but when we want a few additional coppers for old age pensioners all the cunning of the Government and the Treasury is brought to bear against our proposals. It has been computed over and over again that if the money that all the nations spent on war were devoted to housing, education, travel and the like, the human race would have very little to complain about.
I shall be told, of course, that we are in a war and that it must be fought to a conclusion. It is astonishing how people change their minds about war. There are millions of folk willing to stand up against war when peace prevails, but once war breaks out they follow the thunder of the drums and the bands that play patriotic strains in the streets. I have heard it stated by some of my hon. Friends that war is inevitable; it is useless anybody arguing against it; that it must be accepted as a fact, as part of nature itself. I decline to believe that war between nations is inevitable. Why should it be so? A century ago people regarded the plague, cholera and smallpox as inevitable. Indeed, they thought that war between the several communities in this Island was inevitable. We have travelled a long way from that, and consequently I decline to accept the fatalistic view that wars are inevitable. Let me come to what is happening at this moment. Perhaps however I ought to make it clear once again, if necessary, that nothing I say must tend to support either Hitler or Mussolini or any tyrant of that kind. I am as opposed to Nazism, Fascism and totalitarianism as anybody in this country. I am so opposed to them that I object to the Nazi technique being employed in industry in this country. The strange thing to me is, that there are plenty of people in this country who object to totalitarianism in Russia, Germany and Italy, but they do not mind its application here one bit. Indeed, we


have already reached the stage when there is a larger proportion of our people in these Islands in uniform and under discipline than has ever been the case in history. The essence of the Nazi technique is here in full blast. Now we are getting proposals to conscript labour from among schoolboys and grandmothers.
Let me now pass on to the question of bombing. It is astonishing how the human mind works on these things. [Interruption.] When the war ends and the inevitable reaction takes place, as it always does, it will probably be said then that I was right in what I am now saying. There are some people here who rejoice that Rome has been bombed, and there are those in Germany who are delighted that Bath and Exeter were bombed. I cannot understand their delight on either side. I have been in Rome and have seen the famous church that has been damaged. I have also been inside St. Peter's, Rome. If I lived in Germany and was able to speak, I would protest against the bombing of London, Exeter, Bath and Manchester, and because I would do that I want to protest equally against the bombing and blasting of any town anywhere. It is not sufficient for my purpose to hear people say, "Why did not the German people protest against bombing our towns?" Then, there are hon. Members who will say, "Why do not the Germans get rid of their masters?" and they will turn to me and say, "What grand fellows there would be in Germany if a few of them stood up and denounced Hitler and his régime." But if anybody in this country gets up to denounce the very same things that are done here, his patriotism is in grave doubt. Any man in any Parliament, in any assembly in the world who stands up to do what I am trying to do now, to protest against this mass slaughter of the innocents and the destruction of the beautiful cities of Europe is doing a great and valuable service to humanity. If Exeter, Bath, London, St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey are bombed, why stop there? Some day, I suppose, Jerusalem will be bombed and the hill of Calvary destroyed perhaps in the process. Then, we may see whether the human race will at last wake up to the terrible things that are happening in our day and generation.
The British Government have recently taken part in the Hot Springs Conference with a view to bringing food to the starving peoples that are to be liberated on the Continent of Europe. What a mockery when we all know that practically the whole of the human race is already on rations because of war, and, while they were talking at Hot Springs about providing food for the conquered peoples of Europe there were millions actually dying of starvation in China and India. I hope that the House as usual will tolerate my views as I am trying to express them.
Let me now say a word on the difference in the attitude of the public to this war and the last war. In the war of 1914–18 the crowds were hostile whenever I spoke as I do on this occasion, and the people at the head of affairs were rather kindly disposed to the minority. In this war, however, I have addressed hundreds of meetings all over the country, and I have never found any hostility except among Members of the Government. I will venture to state why I think there is that difference. We declared war on Germany because she went into Poland. I object to aggression, but I am not going to accept the argument which some hon. Gentleman here use very often that Germany is the only villain because she has declared war three times in 75 years. She has, and she has been wrong in declaring war at all. Incidentally, I object to any strong and powerful nation using small nations as pawns in the international game, as Germany and other great Powers have been doing. But let us be fair; let us coma to Russia. So far as I know my history, during the 75 years in which Germany has declared three wars Russia declared about 12, Italy 11; and if we count the fighting we have done on the North-West Frontier of India we have hardly been out of war at all for several centuries. In my own lifetime we have declared war three times in 45 years.
At long last, Mussolini has gone, and it is a good thing for humanity that he disappeared. I wish all dictators alike had gone the same way. I am not so sure that it would not be a boon and a blessing to mankind all over the world if the Governments of all the belligerent Powers gave up office for sheer shame.

Mr. Lipson: What made Mussolini give up office?

Mr. Davis: Exactly what will make some other people give up office later on, probably in this country too. It would be a good thing, as I said, if all the belligerent Governments gave up office and allowed others to come into power to make peace among the nations and bring mankind back once again to sanity and reason. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member love this war? Is he so delighted at seeing millions being slaughtered?

Mr. Lipson: No, and the hon. Member knows that is not true. Nobody in this country delights in this war, but we realise that it is an inevitable evil.

Mr. Davies: Nations have gone to their doom, and Empires have toppled because statesmen and politicians have refused to listen to unpopular unpalatable arguments.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs): But did not the late Prime Minister do everything he could to try to prevent this war? Are not our hands clean in this matter?

Mr. Davies: Yes. I know the story about all that, too. There were some people in this country who were always hostile to the Nazi régime. An hon. Member says "Hear, hear," but he went over there and saw what the Nazi régime had done. But there were other Members of this House who went over to Germany before Hitler began to persecute minorities, and they came back and said what a grand fellow the Fuehrer was. There were members of this Government who thought it was a splendid achievement that Hitler came into power and put a cordon sanitaire right across Europe to prevent Bolshevism coming West. What is the position now? I wonder whether I dare predict that at the end of this catastrophe Fascism may be eliminated from all over Europe. But what about the next stage? Suppose I suggested that Communism would take its place all over Europe. What of it then? Just imagine this war being waged and millions of people being killed in order to destroy one form of totalitarianism only to find another form of it being enthroned. That is not at all unlikely if this war proceeds along the line that the present Governments of the United Nations are taking. If it takes two or three more years to defeat Germany in the field and then three or four more years to defeat Japan in the Pacific,

I am not so sure that we may not in the end have civil commotion even among the democracies of the world.
I object to the philosophy that is pronounced from the benches opposite on occasions when it is said that we are going to carry democracy to the Continent of Europe at the point of the sword. Hon. Members object as I do, to the Nazis trying to force Nazism on other nations. By what right, therefore, have we to complain of the form of government they should have in Italy or in Germany? I think some of the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen (the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) on the Front Bench opposite on international affairs have been much more fair on this issue than those of some of his colleagues, and I hope he will take note of this vital issue, that it will be fatal for the future peace of Europe if the democracies try to enforce democracy on all the countries of Europe that may ultimately be subjugated by the United Nations. If we adopt that attitude we are nearly back at the stage when wars were waged between the Catholics and the Protestants, each trying to force their religious philosophies on each other.
I refuse to believe that any two countries in any part of the world will ever be governed alike at any time. I have been to the United States of America many times. The United States is a republic, and Germany is a republic too, but the difference in mental attitude between one of those two republics and the other is far greater than the difference between the United States and ourselves. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that I am a very ardent patriot when I am abroad, in spite of all my criticisms here. I remember in 1938 having dinner in Washington with the late Senator Borah, the Isolationist, a very well-informed man, and asking him whether he thought a war was looming on the horizon. He said "Yes." I said "Do you think my country will keep out of it?" He replied, "No; if there is war in any part of the world, you are in it. You will fight anybody at any time on the slightest excuse." And all of a sudden I became a very ardent British patriot, and argued against him as much as I could.
But let me return to the point that now Mussolini has gone and Badoglio


has taken his place. What do our Government envisage as the form of government in Italy which they will recognise? They say "unconditional surrender." If the hon. Member who is listening to me on behalf of the Foreign Office does not mind my saying so, I am very slow to cast any suspicion upon a Minister of any Government here, but I cannot believe that Eisenhower was in error when he appealed to the Italian people that they ought to consider the terms of peace offered to them by the United Nations. Yet we are told by our Foreign Secretary that no peace terms of any kind have been offered to Italy. I do not understand military affairs, but I know human nature well enough to say this much, that if any person happened to have been born in Italy—if a man had been born in Italy he would be an Italian subject—and he were asked, under present conditions, to make absolute unconditional surrender, what would his reply be? Take the position of Badoglio. What can he do? He might as well continue to fight on to the last man as agree to an unconditional surrender. The United Nations would go on fighting in Italy in order to defeat the Germans in that country.
What the United Nations ought to do if they want Italy to be put out of this war is to offer something to the Italian people upon which they could negotiate in order to get peace restored between us and the Italians. I agree that there is a difference between the mentality of the Italians towards us and that of the Germans. In spite of the centuries of blood relationship between the English and the Germans I think that politically the Italians have more in common with us than the Germans, and consequently I do not like this callous call for unconditional surrender. When I turn my mind back to what happened in the last war I recall that President Wilson offered 14 points to the Germans if they surrendered, and I understand that they laid down their arms very largely because they thought, "this is better than fighting on to the death." But when it came to the terms of peace I believe that only two of the 14 points were inserted in the Treaty. I am rather proud of one thing the Prime Minister said the other day. I do not agree with a lot that he said, but he made one statement with which I was pleased, that it is not intended to keep an army of occupa-

tion in Italy; that would be too expensive from a military point of view. Let me say as an old coal miner that I trust that when we make peace with these countries, however the war may end, we shall not import the same spirit of revenge into the peace treaty as on the last occasion in 1918–19. I know that some Members of the Conservative party have issued their peace points. They are apparently going to re-educate Germany, to penalise Germany—

Sir T. Moore: We have not issued any points.

Mr. Davies: Not in this House. I wonder whether I dare ask hon. Members to remember the effect upon our coal and shipbuilding industries of the treaty made at the end of the last war, and upon other industries too, including cotton. We shall reach a stage, I hope earlier than we think, when we shall have to live in peace once again with all the peoples of Europe, and I trust that in the forthcoming peace treaty we shall not be so stupid as to demand such reparations from the conquered nations as would put our coal-miners and our ship-builders out of work for years, which is exacty what happened on the last occasion.
There are people in this country who talk loudly about educating the Germans. The President of the Board of Education has said that we shall require about 70,000 additional teachers to teach our own people, to start with, and at the same time it is suggested that we are going to educate 80,000,000 Germans, too, and probably 42,000,000 Italians as well. And what is wrong with teaching the French a few lessons, and the Japs—there are about 100,000,000 of them?, If the House does not mind, my suggesting that we start with educating the Indian people. There is a job of work to be done there. And, of course, should Russia and Germany make a separate peace, I suppose we should have to educate 160,000,000 Russians in addition.
I have something else to say to the House, but in passing I want to thank the House for its tolerance to people who hold my views. Incidentally, I am not alone in the House in holding these principles. There is a minority here who take the same line as I do, but there is a larger number outside. I should not be surprised if there were 2,000,000, 3,000,000


or 4,000,000 people in this country who agree with what I say. Hon. Gentlemen laugh. I have lived longer than some of them, and ought to know.
I do not want to detain the House much longer, [AN HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] If hon. Members say "Hear, hear" to that, I will continue; but in spite of their enticement I will conclude. I am afraid I have not put my case in a very chronological order. I only had an elementary education. I could hardly speak English when I was a boy. I naturally feel very deeply on this issue. I have travelled most of Central Europe. I have seen the Czechs, the Slovenes, the Slovaks, the Hungarians, the Macedonians, the Poles, and the Ukrainians. I would like this last utterance to be taken note of, if I may say so. I told some of their leaders in Central Europe when I met them that they would not be able to live together in peace until they had learned to tolerate one another's language and religion. They are astonished of course, at the toleration practised in this country on that score and of which I am very proud. I disagree with my hon. Friends because of their point of view on war and peace, but I have no spirit of hatred towards anybody who disagrees with me. Human nature has been built that way; men in the same political party differ on some fundamental issues. What would be the use of a Parliament if we all agreed with one another, anyhow? Parliament was designed, because there are people who differ fundamentally on these issues of life and death. I close with some lines that I learned long ago from Shelley's "Queen Mab." They are not all that I wish to convey, but they are very appropriate to this occasion:—
War is a statesman's game, the priest's delight,
The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade.

Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend the Member far Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) declared, it seemed to me apologetically and quite unnecessarily, that he had had an elementary education. So had I—very elementary indeed—but that is the only point of agreement between us. Hon. Members on these benches and I in particular, and I imagine hon. Members opposite, appreciate wholeheartedly the sincerity of my hon. Friend. He speaks feelingly, passionately, on an

issue that concerns every one of us. He detests, one might almost say with hatred, the thought of war, the fact of war. So do we all, without exception. War is a messy, murderous, brutal, ugly and loath-some business. This war is not of the making of this party, and I venture the opinion for what it may be worth, although on this head there may be disagreement in certain quarters, that this war was not of the making of this country. Indeed—and my hon. Friend must be familiar with the fact—in the painful, tragic appeasement years preceding the war, the inaction, we cannot say action, of the then Government was regarded by many hon. Members on this side as reprehensible. It was felt that we could not be patient any longer, that the detestable acts of the Nazis preceding the war, in their relations with other European peoples, and in their arrogance towards us, and, over and above that, in their fiendish cruelty and bestiality towards their own people, called for the most drastic action against them.
It has often been argued, and I think with substance, that we might as a nation, in company with other nations, have taken action much earlier than we did, yet it would have involved us in war, with all the passions that it brings. When we discuss war in general, war in vacuo, war as a possibility, we are in cordial agreement, every one of us. Everybody knows that war does not pay. Of course it may pay armament manufacturers and also many workpeople. And that is the tragedy of it, that the workers gain during war. Sometimes there is more abundant prosperity among the workers in war-time than there is in peace. Nevertheless no one in his heart desires slaughter, brutality and the cutting of one another's throats. My hon. Friend indulged in generalisations relating to the ugliness and sinister effect of war, and observed at the same time—and in this I am in cordial agreement with him—that we cannot trust the Government—but that is a side issue—but having expressed his apprehension about the post-war position, as many of us have done on many occasions, the question I pose is: What is to be done about it? That is the sole issue.
If my hon. Friend had been able to indicate to the House some means of bringing this war to a speedy conclusion, with honour to the United Nations, and


with the destruction of the Nazis, or I will go so far with him as to say the destruction of the leaders of the Nazis, we might have gone a long way with him, but he has not indicated anything of a positive nature at all. What would he have us do? To surrender unconditionally? Is it not a fair question? Would he have us say that because we in our hearts hate and loathe war and all that it entails, with all its wild and cruel slaughter, we should hold out the olive branch to Hitler, Goebbels, Goering and their accomplices? Surely that is not his conception of peace. Would he have us make proposals to the Nazis, and, if so, what are the nature of the proposals? Sir, we must in this regard be realistic, and being realistic does not dispense with the idealism which animates us all. We have some hope for the future, but there can be no hope for any of us and for those whom we represent, for the people of this country and the people of the world at large, unless we root out ruthlessly, with all the power at our command, those beasts who are the authors of the crimes which are now being committed throughout the world.
My hon. Friend said that he was opposed to the Nazis and to aggression. How does he propose to apply his opposition? By making speeches of a general character in this House denoting his idealistic views of peace? Why, the Nazis do not care a fig for such speeches, and if that is the only kind of opposition they have to encounter, it will go hard with us. My hon. Friend seemed to express doubts about bombing. I am not clear as to whether he meant the efficacy or the principle of bombing. He did seem to discriminate between the bombing of sacred edifices and bombing elsewhere, although I recognise no distinction. It is as serious matter to bomb working-class houses as it is to bomb some sacred edifice, even if it is in Palestine. Apparently, to Nazism and aggression, both potential and real—and for the time being we are dealing with real aggression—bombing has a mightier and more powerful effect than speeches. That is the right kind of opposition.
Of course, in all this there must be sacrifices. As I speak—and I am sure this is present to the mind of many of my hon. Friends and Members in all quarters of the House, despite our political differences—now, in the tip of Sicily, our men are undergoing trials and tribulations,

even unto death. Is that not always present to us in the face of such events? It is no light thing. We are comfortably placed here at home. It is a hateful thought that our own boys and our own brothers should be going through hell. It is hateful, but unfortunately it is necessary. I put it in a very simple way. Would my hon. Friend now advise that we should withdraw the men from Sicily, make no attack on the Italian ports, fail to use Italy as a jumping-off ground to destroy the Nazis? Would he suggest that?
Of course he would not. He knows it is utterly impracticable. Then what is the purpose of his speech? My hon. Friend said that he thought there were millions of people in the country who would support his views. I know that he addresses meetings in the country, but he knows also that I address meetings, and very large meetings, probably as many as any other Member in this House. I must say, with the utmost good will to my hon. Friend, that I have so far failed to detect any evidence, apart from the natural desire to avoid war and to promote peace, to indulge in surrender to our enemies. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says that he never suggested it. It seemed to me that that could be detected in his utterances. There is a very strong feeling in favour of pacifism generally, as an ideal, but faced with the awful facts of the present situation, what is the use of talking about pacifism?
I go so far as to say this, and here I make a confession, that in the past war, in the later stages of the war, I was in favour, with Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, of peace by negotiation. I have never taken the view that we could always escape the use of force. I have on occasion welcomed bloodshed. It depended whose blood it was. I agree with John Bright that force may be no remedy but that we are not always very logical in these matters. If now at this hour it was regarded as expedient and even feasible to promote peace by negotiations, I would support such a proposal, but I know that the slighest gesture of that kind would be regarded by our enemies as weakening. Imagine what the fate of the world would be. We cannot afford it. My hon. Friend has warned the Government that if we destroy Fascism and Nazism—I am bound to say that I do not recognise any distinction,


because they are birds of a feather, if that metaphor explains the matter—Communism may take its place. I know what my hon. Friends opposite think about Communism and I have some knowledge of what my hon. Friends on this side of the House think; but if I had to choose, I would prefer the Russian dispensation to the German, because at present it appears to me, in spite of all that has happened—I hope this will not be regarded as irrelevant—in Russia, and many of us have tried to understand what was happening in Russia during the revolutionary period, it is my convinced view that there will be modifications in their political system and their ideology in future. Russia will become more democratic, although at the present time they regard themselves as democratic. After all, we must not judge the Russians by our own democracy. Some of us occasionally have doubts about it, and there are different views and different brands of democracy. If one had to choose, I would prefer this Russian Communism to the bestial thing which has emerged from Germany, this new order, forsooth. It stinks of the Middle Ages. It is worse than anything that happened in the Middle Ages.
My hon. Friend spoke about travelling abroad. He has been in Poland. He knows the Poles. That is more than I have done. I have never been there, contrary to the general belief. I believe my ancestors had something to do with that place—but we cannot of course be responsible for our ancestors. It would be very awkward for some of us if we were. In fact, when we reflect on the political events in Poland, the millions of people who have been slaughtered—I am not thinking of Jews alone but am speaking of people, and I am concerned with people and not with races or religions—I would like the opinion of my hon. Friend. What are we to do about it? Let the Germans get on with it? With the best will in the world we must go ahead. We must destroy these brutes at the earliest opportunity. My hon. Friend said that we may have civil commotion after this war. Perhaps there I am slightly in agreement. Any kind of commotion will do after this war, even if it happens to be civil. I do not want a world that is uniform and where everybody agrees. We had better have a row occasionally and if we cannot have a row with our

opponents let us have it with our friends. Why should we speak in terms of surrender now and giving way to Nazis and Fascists because we are apprehensive about civil commotion in this country? My hon. Friend seemed to be very illogical. He said that when he was abroad he was an ardent patriot. I do not know what Senator Borah thought of him, but after his statement perhaps what I think of him I had better tell him outside. How he can be an ardent patriot abroad, be-laud his own country and virtues, stand up for it and its great achievements and then come here asking us to bow the knee to the enemy is more than I can understand.

Mr. Rhys Davies: My hon. Friend has not been unfair up to now, and I hope he will not put into my mouth the words that I want to bow the knee to the enemy. He knows that I happen to be the chairman of a group of Labour Members in this House who are always asking that the British and United Nations should state their peace aims and saying that if they did, it might shorten the period of the war.

Mr. Shinwell: That would seem to me to be slightly irrelevant, but I will take up my hon. Friend on his own ground. He wanted the Government to state their peace aims. I thought they had been stated. My peace aims are the destruction of the enemy. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Springburn (Mrs. Hardie) wants to know the Government's peace aims and is not very much concerned about mine. I do not matter; I recognise that. Sometimes we think the Government do not matter. At any rate I thought the peace aims had been stated. Whether they have or not, I believe that the only peace aims of any consequence at all lie in the destruction of the enemy, because we are never going to get real peace otherwise. I repeat that we may go through great trials before we succeed. I would like to say, in parenthesis, that much as I dislike the bombing in this country—I do not think anyone likes it, and those who have gone through the blitz by no means want a repetition—I sometimes feel I was glad to be in it because we were all in the war, we were not leaving it all for the young fellows to go out and fight. My hon. Friend said that there must be no question of revenge at the end of the war. Revenge against whom?
Against the common people of Germany? They may be at fault, but there can be no question of revenge against them. But revenge against the bestial authors of this crime, certainly. I hope that when that time comes, when victory has been achieved, we will plant our feet firmly on the ground of peace, on the ruins of Nazism and Fascism and the destruction of those responsible for plunging the world into this conflagration.

MINISTERS' SALARIES (INCOME TAX)

Mr. Holmes: I want the House to consider a domestic matter, the question of Ministers' salaries and their assessment to Income Tax. Perhaps I may be allowed just for the moment to remind the House that Income Tax is assessed under five headings; Schedule A is on land and buildings; Schedule B, in inspect of occupation of land; Schedule C, on interest and annuities; and Schedule D on the profits of all kinds of businesses, on the income of professional men, on interest from Dominion and foreign securities and in respect of annual profits not included in any other Schedule. Then we come to Schedule E, which is on the profits on all offices, employments and pensions. That applies to Members of Parliament or a Minister. Each receives a salary. Schedule E has a number of rules attached to it. One of the rules is that a reduction is allowed for
money wholly exclusively and necessarily expended in the performance of duties.
The right to that deduction applies to everybody receiving salary, wages, fees, commission, or any other form of remuneration. It applies to Members of Parliament, who are entitled to ask that a deduction shall be made from their £600 a year in respect of money which is "wholly, exclusively and necessarily expended in performance of" their duties as Members of Parliament. The result is that Members of Parliament in some cases get the whole of their £600 a year allowed, or a large proportion of it, because they are allowed to charge against the £600 a year secretarial expenses, stationery, postages, telephones, and similar out-of-pocket expenses. Also, if they reside in London they can charge all hotel living expenses in their constituency, or if they live in their constituency and the constituency is not in London, they can

charge the whole of their expenses of living in London while they are attending the House of Commons. That is a right which they have under this rule, a rule which applies to every salary and wage earner in the country.
This is the point I want to bring before the House. If a Member of Parliament becomes a Minister, he ceases to receive his salary of £600 a year, and it is then held by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the expenses with regard to his constituency or his expenses of living in London are not wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in performing his duties as a Minister. The result is that when he becomes a Minister he has to pay out of his taxed income all the expenses which he as a Member of Parliament was previously entitled to deduct from his £600 a year.
I will give a couple of examples of how this works. The Prime Minister has seen fit during this war to invite talented men who were not Members of the House of Commons to join his Ministry. He may do so again at any time. A seat has to be found for such a new Minister. Let us assume that the man had been a very successful business man, and had an income, from the money he had saved, of £20,000 a year. I want in the first place to point out the position of a man who has £20,000 a year now, as compared with the position of such a man in 1938–39. In 1938–39, after paying Income Tax and Surtax on his £20,000, he retained for himself—it depended, of course, on what allowance he got for dependants and so on—roughly £12,500. Under our present taxation, out of his £20,000 he retains £3,750. The Prime Minister invites a man in that position to become a Minister. He says to him, "You will have a salary of £5,000 a year, and we shall have to find you a seat in the House of Commons." Of the £5,000 a year Ministerial salary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take in Income Tax and Surtax £4,875, so that the man would receive 5,000 shillings
—£125. He is found a seat in the House of Commons. He has an income of £3,750 from his own investments and £125 from his Ministerial salary of £5,000. That is a total of £3,875. But he will have to spend out of his own income the cost of his constituency, which is not likely to be less than £600 a year.[HON.


MEMBERS: "Why?"] Well, I will say £400 if you like.

Mr. Montague: We do not spend that on our constituencies.

Mr. Holmes: You have also to include the cost of your residence in London. A good many Members on that side may not spend much money on their constituencies, but they are able to charge up the whole of their living expenses in London while attending Parliament against their £600 a year. I am going to take it that the man has to spend the whole £600 on his Parliamentary duties. Before he joined the Government he had left out of his income after taxation £3,750. He becomes a Cabinet Minister with £5,000 a year, and he finds that his net income is £3,275. It is a farcical situation.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Member talks as if this were a new situation. It has been the position, so far as the Tory Party and the Liberal Party are concerned, ever since I came into the House that people on becoming Ministers had to give up part of their income—directorships and so on. There is nothing new about it.

Mr. Holmes: I am not dealing with people who have to give up directorships and so forth: it is a matter of taxation. It is no good the noble Lord talking about when he first came into the House, because there was then no Parliamentary salary. It is only since Parliamentary salaries were instituted that the matter has arisen, and it is of increasing importance, first, because the Parliamentary salary has been raised from £400 to £600, and, secondly, because taxation is very much higher. It is absolutely farcical that a man can be invited to become a Minister, can be offered £5,000 a year as a Minister, and can find himself, quite apart from giving up fees—I purposely said that I was dealing with income from investments—£400 or £500 a year worse off than he was before he accepted the position. It would be much better for him to say, "I will do the Ministerial job for nothing, and if I get into the House I will take my £600 a year."
Take the case of a junior Member. He used to have his Parliamentary salary of £600 a year, out of which, on constituency

expenses and so on, he had to spend possibly £400; so he paid Income Tax on £200. In addition, perhaps, he had a small appointment or a trade union grant of, say, £500 a year, which brought him up to a taxable income of £700. When he becomes a Minister he is no longer able to charge up the expense of £400 a year which he incurs by living in London or for which in other ways he can claim. He is worse off by Imo or even more a year by accepting a Ministerial post of £1,000 a year.

Mr. Mathers: And almost certainly he loses his trade union grant, because normally trade unions do not pay grants to Ministers.

Mr. Holmes: That is what I am assuming. I was assuming that he had previously his £600 a year salary and £400 to £500 from the trade union.

Mr. Mathers: Much less.

Mr. Holmes: Well, that may be so. I am in agreement with my hon. Friend. This is a most unfair situation. So far as I know it has never been challenged by any Minister. I feel that there are two men who ought to challenge the ruling of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that a Minister is not entitled to charge his expenses against his Ministerial salary. Those two are the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—for this reason, that they must be Members of the House of Commons. Any other Ministerial office, so far as I know, may be held by a Member of the House of Lords, but it is essential that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury shall be Members of this House. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary might consider whether he might not give the Commissioners a run on this point; and if he would like someone to represent him professionally on that occasion I shall be only too happy to do so without any fee. This is a matter for the House of Commons. It cannot be raised by the Ministers themselves. I feel that we, as ordinary Members, should make a gesture on this matter, that we should say, "This is unfair and it should be put right."
The proposal that I want to put forward is that where a Minister is a Member of the House of Commons his salary


should be reduced by £600 a year, and that he should continue to receive his Parliamentary salary of £600. Take a Minister with £1,500 a year. If he were a Member of the House of Lords he would receive his £1,500, and he would pay full tax on it. He could not charge any expenses. If the junior Minister were a Member of this House, his salary would be reduced to £900 a year, and he would get in addition £600 a year as a Member of this House. He would then have the right to charge against that £600 a year the expenses which he necessarily incurs in carrying out his duties as a Member of Parliament. I hope that there will be a gesture on the part of the House, on the grounds of fairness and justice, to indicate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Prime Minister that the other Members of the House, who are not concerned in this matter, would like this alteration to be made.

Earl Winterton: I did not intend to speak in this Debate. I think that everyone will sympathise with the case that has been made by my hon. Friend, but I most sincerely hope that the Government will not make the concession which he asks for, in wartime. Nothing would be more unfortunate, however strong a case there was for it, than to make such a concession for Ministers or private Members in time of war. When my hon. Friend talks about people being worse off as a result of taking office at £5,000 a year, I do not want to be sentimental, but let him think of the hundreds and thousands of men who have given up salaries of £3,000, £4,000 and £5,000 a year and are now ordinary private soldiers or subalterns. I think we ought to have a Motion on the subject and a big debate after the war, but I hope that the Government will not make the concession now. This is not the time for Members of Parliament to make an accretion to their own salaries, while these questions of pensions and Service pay and other things are still unsolved. I hope that my hon. Friend, who has done a great service in bringing this matter forward, will be content with the assurance, which I am certain he will receive, that this is not a matter that can be dealt with at the present time.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I am sure the House will be grateful to the hon. Mem-

ber for Harwich (Mr. Holmes) for raising this matter, which is of considerable interest, no doubt. It is a somewhat delicate position for me to reply to a Debate on this subject, as I am one of those affected by the proposal: The hon. Member is quite right in saying that, as the law stands, there are Ministers, particularly junior Ministers—of whom I am one—who do in fact lose rather than gain by taking office. The other day a Question was put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), and if I may refresh the memory of the House by quoting my hon. Friend's Question, it will perhaps help us. My hon. Friend asked the Prime Minister:
whether, having regard to the fact that Ministers who are Members of the Commons House of Parliament are not in receipt of salaries as Members of Parliament and, accordingly, cannot claim for Income Tax purposes against their salaries as Ministers the expenses which are deductible against their salaries as Members of Parliament, he will move to appoint a Select Committee to consider the situation, more particularly as it affects junior Ministers?
In reply to that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
This matter was discussed by the House during the Debates on the Ministers of the Crown Bill, 1937. Undoubtedly, the position as stated by my hon. Friend discloses a case requiring consideration, in respect of junior Ministers. The Government have not, up to the present, felt themselves able to make any recommendation to the House."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 6th July, 1943; cols. 1929ǵ30, Vol. 390.]
I have nothing further to add to what has already been said on that subject, but none the less I am sure that the House will understand the honourable motives of my hon. Friend who introduced it.

WAR DAMAGE ACT

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I propose to take up the time of the House for a brief period to refer to the difficulties and anomalies under the War Damage Act. It was on 26th March, 1941, that the Act was passed. The conditions which prevailed at the time when the Bill was brought into this House were such that I believe the significance of the Measure was not fully appreciated. We had, a few months before, won the Battle of Britain, and this country was under


persistent bombing, and under these conditions it was not unreasonable that this House should not fully appreciate the significance of this Measure. I represent a constituency which, unfortunately, has been very severely bombed, and incidentally I have lost my London house under these conditions, so that I know something about the matter. Hon. Members who represent similar constituencies will confirm the position I have outlined and that very great hardship has been imposed. At the time of the heavy blitzing of my constituency it was a question of constant contact with people who had suffered damage. Therefore when these claims came in such large numbers it was inevitable that there would be some confusion. I fully realise the difficulties the War Damage Commission has been up against. An entirely new organisation had to be set up. In spite of the difficulties with which I and so many others have come in contact, I feel that the War War Damage Commission has rendered a very great service. I suppose that right up to the end of this business there will be some people who will find one or other reason for being somewhat critical, but one is justified in saying that the Commission has done a really good job. At the same time we must have some regard to the effect of the war damage contribution, which is contributed almost entirely by the property owners themselves, on our post-war housing position.
I have during the last few weeks asked many Questions regarding housing, and there will be a good many more to follow. I am endeavouring to impress upon the Government the necessity for an entirely different outlook on post-war housing. War damage contribution is one of the causes which will handicap post-war housing. Was it really fair that this Measure should put a burden upon a particular section of the community when they already had other heavy burdens not shared by other members of the community, and in addition, their property was restricted in so far as rentals were concerned, the property owner being in the position that he could not raise his rent to meet increased cost of management and repairs, both of which are directly connected with the war?
The treatment of property owners has created a definite amount of lack of con-

fidence. If there is lack of confidence in any particular direction, it always reacts sooner or later. I will tell my hon. Friend what I believe to be adequate grounds for some alterations which he has the power to make and thereby restore confidence in property. It is not the property owner alone whom we need to consider; there are several things to consider. There are 47,000,000 people in this country who have to live in homes. There are several millions who through war damage are not now adequately housed. I want to remove all the handicaps that are likely to stand in the way when the war is over of finding these people adequate accommodation. This Act has been in operation now for three years, and three contributions to the compensation fund have fallen due, and there are still two further contributions. Therefore, over this period the Government must be fully aware of the anomalies and hardships it is surprising that they have not themselves come forward with some proposals for minimising, if not entirely eliminating, these anomalies and hardships.

Mr. Assheton: I would remind my hon. Friend and the House that we did bring in an amending Bill early this year.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I think I shall be able to show that the amending Measure does not deal with the hard core of hardship. I am inclined to think that the amending Measure to which my hon. Friend refers gave greater concessions to that section of the community who can better afford to shoulder these heavy burdens than most of the people for whom I am now speaking. I feel that the Government might have gone very much further when they were bringing forward their amending Bill.
Let me mention one or two anomalies. Take the case of two identical houses both costing the same money—absolutely identical in every respect. One of them is occupied by the owner-occupier, he being a gentleman who is purchasing his house, it may be, through a Building Society or an insurance company. When occupying that house—and I am quoting from actual figures—his assessment is £24 per annum and his amount of war damage contribution for the five years amounts to £12. The gentleman who is occupying the adjoining house, which is absolutely identical, and is paying an economic rent, is assessed at £40 This


house is the property of an investor and therefore the investor has to pay war damage contribution to the amount of £20 for the five years. The owner-occupier, who is paying the £12, gets precisely the same amount of insurance cover as the investor who is paying £20. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary probably will reply that one is assessed on the hypothetical rent. I put this to the House, every one of these owner-occupier houses are illegally assessed and if the hon. Gentleman will deal with that point, I would like him to show the House of Commons, if he can, that I have made an incorrect statement. These people who have the handling of property know that when you come to rate assessment the houses are assessed on what an hypothetical tenant would pay. Is it any different when it comes to be assessed for Income Tax purposes under Schedule A? There is no difference and therefore one assessment is right and the other is wrong. They cannot both be right and they cannot both be wrong. I would like the hon. Gentleman to say, if he can, which is the correct assessment.
There is another point I would like to bring to the notice of the House. I raised this matter in October, 1941, in a Question. It refers to a property owner who has suffered damage to his property to the extent of just over £20,000. This only forms a small part of the whole of the properties belonging to this individual. That £20,000 is owing by the State to this individual and there is no argument. That is definitely the position. The property owner over a period of five years will pay war damage contribution to an extent of just over £17,000. Therefore under the War Damage Act the State has a claim upon that property belonging to this individual of £17,000 and the individual property owner has a claim against the State for £20,000. In this case we would say, in business, "I owe you £20,000, and you owe me £17,000. I will pay you the difference." That is what we do in business. But not the Government. They say, "Yes, I admit that I owe you £20,000, but that does not matter; you owe me £17,000, and I must insist upon your paying it." The property owner has no means of insisting that the Government should pay the £20,000 which they owe him. As I have said, this Act was passed at a very strange time, when we were under a great deal of

stress and strain and when some of the significances of it were probably not appreciated. But now we know from actual experience what is the position. I submit to the Financial Secretary that the time has come when such anomalies as these should not be permitted. May I refer to a reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to me in answer to a Question in October, 1941, asking whether one claim could be set against the other? He said:
The collection of instalments of contributions on damaged property in respect of which a value payment is likely to be made is to be suspended.
That means that compensation which is payable on damaged property is suspended.

Mr. Bellenger: And so are contributions.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Contributions are suspended on a particular block of property which has been damaged, but they are not suspended on the whole of other properties which come into the group. The Chancellor went on to say:
…and the amount of the value of payment, if it is eventually made, will be reduced by so much of the instalments as has not been made.
Here, in black and white, is evidence that property owners' claims for war damage may not, in fact, be paid. Therefore, I would like the Financial Secretary to be more definite on that point. I will read the appropriate words of the Chancellor again, so that there will be no doubt:
…if it is eventually made…

Mr. Assheton: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene, to explain the difficulty? What my right hon. Friend the Chancellor undoubtedly meant was, if a value payment was made as opposed to a cost-of-works payment.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I am dealing with value payments, not cost-of-works payments.
The next point I want to put forward is the case of the owner of property which has been completely destroyed and which has been valued at £750. The man has a mortgage of £500, and the property is subject to a ground rent of £6. What is the position of this man, a working man? His house is blitzed, and the amount agreed upon for payment is £750. This man is called upon by the lender of the


money to him to pay his interest on that money, as well as the ground rent of go. It is true that the Financial Secretary may say that the man can get relief under the War Emergency Powers Act. But what is the position under this Act? Unless the man is insolvent, there is no relief. To get any relief from a situation which has arisen out of enemy action, the man has to be insolvent. The fair way of treating a case of that kind would be to find the £500 part payment of the total loss so that he may repay the mortgagee. That is not unreasonable.
The next anomaly I would like to refer to concerns low-rented houses. The Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, was passed so that abnormal advances might be made to people who own property. The loans which had to be made by building societies were to total 90 per cent. of the value, the societies retaining the full risk of the 70 per cent. Between 70 and 90 per cent. the risk was shared, one-third each, between the building society, the Government and the local authority. As a result of that Act private enterprise came forward and built many thousands of houses at very low rentals. In spite of the fact that the period of capital repayment was an extended period over that normally expected by the building societies, the management and operation of such properties resulted in a revenue deficiency. The people who built houses under this Act were, as a rule, substantial people and, therefore, could afford to face, in normal conditions but not in war-time, a revenue deficiency. But during the war these people, who have generously responded to the appeals to provide houses for the working classes at very low rents, have had imposed upon them war damage contributions, which has made their deficiency infinitely greater. That will not encourage private enterprise to proceed with much building when the war is over.
I could quote many other anomalies, but I think I have said sufficient to convict the House that this Act has created a very great hardship. If we can forget for a moment the sad loss of life and injury, it seems to me that we have some consolation in the bombing of our cities. London has had removed by enemy bombs properties which should have been removed many years ago. But why impose this responsibility on the property

owners? The Prime Minister himself in 1940, said in this House that damage by enemy action stood on a different footing from any other kind of loss or damage and that the nation undertook to be responsible against assault from the outside. That statement has never been implemented, although it is clear that the Prime Minister fully appreciated the country's responsibility. Something has happened which has caused a change to be made which will be very detrimental to our housing programme when the war is over. As I have said, there may be some consolation in the blitzing of our cities. I say that because, quite apart from the £200,000,000 which has to be provided by the property owners, plus the £200,000,000 which the Government will contribute—and which should have been contributed pound for pound instead of waiting for the property owners to find the first £200—the cost of replacing and rebuilding our cities might well be used as a foundation for restoring and reviving general industry not only in our towns but in the blitzed towns of Europe.
What I want to say now will not, I think, be out of Order. When the War Damage Commission have agreed as to the amount of the cost of the replacement and give a certificate showing the amount to which a person is entitled, that certificate ought to be financed by the joint stock banks. I myself hold a certificate for damage done to my furniture when I lost my own home, and I really think that could be brought into the general financial arrangements and so save any further burden being put upon the taxpayers of the country. I submit that, having regard to the present military situation, while fully conscious that we may have to suffer to some extent further serious bombing, the Government will be justified in suspending any further payments under the War Damage Act, as they have power to do under Section 22, or reducing the two remaining annual payments. I hope the proposal will have due and favourable consideration.

Captain Gammans: I am glad my hon. Friend has brought this question forward. We are dealing under the Act with vast sums of money, and its operations affect many millions of people. It will give an opportunity for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to hear the views of property owners on the operation


of the Act and an opportunity which I hope he will take of giving some indication as to how the Government propose to operate the Act in future.
We are dealing with a very large section of the population. It is a popular cry to talk about rapacious landlords and land speculators, but I have no concern with them. I am concerned with the many millions. I think 5,000,000 people have put their life's savings into houses and have saved money by hard work and initiative. They represent a class of people whom we used to regard—I am not sure whether we do now—as the very best type of citizen, but in these days of almost universal social services I am wondering whether thrift and self-sacrifice are still regarded as virtues. It is certain that these people are almost completely un-organised, and there is a danger that they may fall between the two stools of large business on the one side and organised labour on the other. The same thing very largely applies not merely to people who own their own houses but to those who have invested in property companies. This is not a speculative form of investment and never has been. Those who have put their money into property or property companies have not done so for the sake of high and fluctuating dividends. I feel that I am right in suggesting that most property owners have a very real sense of grievance against the War Damage Act. To start with, most of them consider that in the passing of the War Damage Act there was a direct contravention of a pledge given by the Prime Minister three years ago. He talked about spreading the burden so that we all stood together and went on to use the words my hon. Friend has read, and added:
The nation undertakes the task of defending the lives and property of its subjects and taxpayers against assaults from without.
If those two statements meant anything at all, they meant that war damage was to be a charge on the community as a whole and was not to be restricted as it is now to one section of the population. What has in fact happened? Under the War Damage Act the first £200,000,000 worth of damage is entirely paid by the property owners, and only if there is over £200,000,000 worth does the Treasury come into it at all. No-one knows what the final figure is going to be. We were told last November, in answer to

a Question, that the amount actually disbursed by the War Damage Commission up to date was in the neighbourhood of £100,000,000, but that did not take into account the contingent liability, which cannot be met to-day because of the shortage of men and materials. The first question I want to ask my hon. Friend is whether he can give us any idea of what are the outstanding liabilities. He will probably say he cannot, for security reasons, but for the life of me I cannot see what security factor is involved in giving us a figure of that sort.
Another grievance that property owners have is that the mortgagee makes no contribution, with one exception. This was brought up when the Act was amended last year, but the grievance remains, and time has done nothing to lessen it. Most property owners feel that the mortgagee has as much interest in the fate of the property as they have themselves, and it is no good saying that this was not envisaged when the mortgage was made out. Of course it was not, because then bombing was not envisaged at all. It is equally true that in the vast majority of cases the mortgagee would not recover a penny of his mortgage money unless he did it out of the value of the house itself. This fact is accepted by implication, because under the Act in the case of a value payment the mortgagee has to be paid off before the owner gets a cent of his money.
Another grievance that property owners have is the rate of interest on value payments. The owner is entitled to 2½ per cent., but he does not get a penny till after the war. In the majority of cases people who have mortgages are paying between 4½ and 5½ per cent. The second question therefore I should like to ask is whether there is any means whereby that interest can be paid while the war is on. Meagre as it may be it would certainly go some way to help people who have to meet interest charges.
There are two other directions in which the Financial Secretary could give some idea of what help is possible. The first is in regard to the contribution generally. Property owners meet the first £200,000,000, and the Treasury meets the second. We do not know what the final figure will be, but if the Treasury would say now that whatever the final figure is they will meet half of it, that would do something to help. Supposing the final


figure of war damage is £320,000,000, property owners will bear £200,000,000 and the Treasury £120,000,000. Could they not halve it and each pay £160,000,000? Another direction in which there is considerable concern is in regard to value payments as opposed to cost-of-work payments. I had an answer to a Question to-day which I imagine most Members have not seen. It goes part of the way to deal with the point to which I was going to refer. This is the answer:
The test of total loss for the purpose of the War Damage Act, 1943, is not a physical but an economic test, and it is likely that many houses of good quality will qualify for a cost of works payment even if they are physically totally destroyed.
If I understand that correctly, it means that the Government have appreciated what was before a very glaring anomaly. There are two houses side by side, one badly knocked about but not completely destroyed. It had a cost-of-works payment, which means that the owner virtually has a house to live in. The man next door has his house blown to smithereens and is given a value payment, the value being based upon the value in March, 1939, when values of property were very much depressed. That £700 or whatever the value payment was would not go far towards the rebuilding of the house. That would mean that one man would be in an infinitely better position than his neighbour. Therefore I am hoping that the answer to my Question means that the War Damage Commission are going to adopt a sensible course and try to give people back a house, because that is in fact what they want.
There is a small point under Part II of the Act, with regard to chattels. Here an anomaly has arisen in that people who had the good fortune lo be paid for total loss of furniture early on are in an immeasurably better position than the wretched people who are being paid now, because meanwhile the cost of furniture either new or second hand has gone up probably anything up to 100 per cent., and what a family gets now will perhaps only furnish about half the house.
I believe this question of fair dealing to the property owner covers not merely common justice to a worthy section of the community. It really strikes at the whole basis of the Government's post-war housing programme. I remember that

when we were discussing war damage 18 months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer got very worried about the woes and miseries of mortgagees and said that if anything was done to destroy the value of a mortgage, mortgagees would not come forward when the war was over and lend money on property. I do not know whether that was true or not, but I am sure there is a very real danger of house building and properly ownership receiving such a shock that people will not be prepared to put their money into it when the war is over. The Minister of Health has told us that in the vast rebuilding programme after the war tie expects private enterprise to play a very large part, and on the basis of pre-war figures that means that private enterprise will build three out of every four houses. This is the question that worries me, in view of this differential legislation against property. The properly owner bears all the direct and indirect taxation, and he has this imposition of war damage and Rent Restrictions Acts and other things. Because of that differentiation against the property owner, will people be prepared to come forward and put their money in property? No other section of the community is expected to do what the property owner is expected to do, and that is to bear highly increased charges out of a pre-war income. I do not want to tell the House a lot of piteous tales about the woes of property owners, but I venture to suggest that there is hardly a Member who does not know of terribly sad cases of people who are at their wits end to pay the War Damage Contribution and the other additional expenditure which arises out of the war.
My feeling is that two things will inevitably happen. One is that much property, which would otherwise have had many years of useful life before it, will become slums when the war is over simply because the wretched owner has not the money to restore it. The other thing that I am afraid will happen is that people will be reluctant to put their money into property. I wish the Chancellor were here to-day, because I would like to ask him this question. Suppose a young man in the Forces came to him and said, "After the war it was my ambition to save money and buy a house. Would you frankly advise me, legislation being what it is, to put my money into buying a house?" If I personally were asked that question


and I were honest in my reply, I should say, "No, I cannot advise you to do so with all this differential legislation about such as this virtual capital levy which we have under the War Damage Act. I cannot advise you to put your money into buying property. My advice to you is to sit down until the local authority builds you, a house, and lets it to you at an uneconomic rent." I hope I am not exaggerating, but I believe that if the viewpoint gets about that the ownership of property and the building of houses is no longer a desirable virtue, financial, social, or in any other way, it will have a serious effect on the whole Government policy after the war. For that reason, and because I believe that the small house-owner has a genuine grievance, I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be able to say something which will suggest in what way this burden can be lessened.

Mr. Belienger: Most of the arguments that have been put forward by my two hon. Friends opposite have been before the House on previous occasions when the War Damage Acts were under discussion. In those days, particularly When the first Act was introduced, we were in an experimental stage, and the time has now arrived when the Treasury ought to have had a good deal of experience to enable them to say whether and how long they are going to continue this grievous burden on the owners of property. There are many anomalies and certain injustices which we could ventilate to-day if we felt inclined, but this is the occasion when various hon. Members wish to speak on their own subjects, and I will, therefore, confine my remarks to one point. Under the War Damage Act there are two classes of payments. One is the cost-of-works payment, which is for the purpose of putting damaged houses into a state of repair so that they can be occupied; the other is the value payment, which is to compensate the owner of a property if it has been entirely destroyed or so destroyed that it is not worth rebuilding.
What is happening with regard to the cost-of-works payment? Because of the control that the Ministry of Works exercises over building labour and partly because of the Treasury itself, there is …100 limit above which owners of property cannot go without a licence to put their houses in order. There is a

continual agitation, and there will be an increasing agitation as time goes on, for more housing accommodation. On numerous occasions recently the Minister has been pressed to build more houses in the country. The situation is just as urgent, perhaps even more so, in many towns, but very little is being done to meet it. If the Treasury in consultation with the other Departments would give More facilities for putting the cost-of-works payment into operation so that houses can be put into a habitable state, the property, much of which is owned by small owners, have their whole capital and life-savings invested in one or two houses, would be able to resume earning capacity from which the Treasury would benefit under Schedule A assessments. There are thousands of properties which could be put in a state of repair and which would enable the Treasury to get their taxes under Schedule A assessment which they are not getting at the present moment. For that reason alone, as a matter of self-interest from the point of view of the Treasury they should speed up the procedure of getting houses repaired on the cost-of-works basis.
When we come to value payments in cases where a house has been entirely destroyed or is not worth rebuilding, the owner who has his money sunk into the property is suspended in mid-air. He has the burden of debt hanging round his neck like a millstone if he is mortgaged. It is true that under the Defence of the Realm Act and certain other Acts he cannot be proceeded against by his mortgagee by way of foreclosure or pressure to make him pay unless he is a substantial man and has other assets. In most cases the value payment has not yet been fixed by the War Damage Commission and he will only be able to draw that money at some date that may be far hence. Why not in these cases fix the value payment and pay him out sufficient to enable him to remove the mortgage so that he can clear himself of the debt with which he is burdened and keep the balance in hand until the end of the war so that he does not have the opportunity of spending it in riotous living? What public interest is against that suggestion? It will only mean the transfer of the money from one pocket to another. There will not be any danger of inflation

]
about it and, if anything, it will make more liquid the assets of insurance companies, banks, and building societies which have lent large sums on properties. The time has arrived for the Chancellor to consider these and other matters arising out of the War Damage Acts.
There is the question of the War Damage Contribution which has been argued by my two hon. Friends opposite. The 2s. in the £ per annum for five years is now becoming to many small property owners an intolerable burden. It is an extra tax on that class of persons. If a property owner had put his money into war savings or railways or something like that he would have been far better off, but because he put it into houses and in many cases a house in which he meant to live himself, he is penalised. I ask the Financial Secretary not to give us some conventional answer such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given on previous occasions when we have put similar arguments. It has been stated previously, but I have no hesitation in repeating it, that to-day we are dealing with a class of person whose morale we want to keep up. They are the home owners, not the property owners, of this country, they are the basis of family, and communal happiness in this country, and I think more consideration should be paid to them now that we can see a little bit of daylight in the matter of bombing—at least we hope so—and, perhaps, can see the end of the war a little more clearly than two or three years ago. I think the time is ripe for the Treasury to reconsider these matters and on a future occasion to let the House have an opportunity of debating them at greater length. Finally, I should like to pay a tribute to the War Damage Commission, because from my own experience cost-of-works payments are now being made very expeditiously. There was criticism a year or two ago that claims were not being met promptly, but in the case of claims which I have dealt with I have had payment within a fortnight on an average, and I think that ought to be said in compliment to the working of the War Damage Commission under its very excellent management.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I should like to say how grateful I am to my colleague the senior Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) and the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey

(Captain Gammans) for bringing this matter to the notice of the House to-day. I agree with the hon. Member for Basset-law (Mr. Bellenger) that the War Damage Act was brought into being at a time when we were all undergoing considerable stress, but I think the time has now arrived when we could examine into many of the anomalies, inequities and injustices which we find existing under the Act. I am whole-heartedly behind previous speakers who have pointed out that property owners in this country are very often small men. As my hon. Friend has said, a man owns the house in which he lives, he may buy the house next door out of his savings, and he looks forward in that way to getting some benefit out of his thrift in his old age, but such a man is definitely saddled now with very heavy burdens. Not only has he to pay his taxes but he has to pay war damage contribution over a period of five years. That ought to be borne in mind. The War Damage Amendment Act was passed with the intention of repairing a considerable number of properties which would not normally have been repaired under the original Act. I refer to the cost-of-works payments made towards them under the amending Measure. Unfortunately, owing to the restrictions which were imposed, it has been quite impossible to put many of these properties into repair. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the Minister of Health is considering housing now and post-war housing, but this work cannot be taken in hand on account of the restriction limiting the cost of the work which could be undertaken £100 without licence. It would be interesting to hear from the Financial Secretary how many of the properties which we thought would be put into order after the amending Act had been passed have actually been dealt with.
Again, I cannot emphasise too much that the position of mortgagees and mortgagors should also be looked into. I think it is right to say that a payment under the War Damage Act is actually an ex gratia payment. The senior Member for Southampton did suggest that a balance should be struck between the War Damage Commission and a person in regard to cost-of-works payments due and war damage contribution payable. This is clearly quite a businesslike way of dealing with the matter and should be considered. I think the methods of the


Commission in that regard should be looked into, and that a cost-of-works payment should be regarded by His Majesty's Government more as the present right of the citizen who has suffered; and if, too, the licence can be widened so that the payments may be used to put the properties in order it will be a very good thing from the housing point of view.
There is another question to which I should like to have an answer. Many persons are leaseholders, and if the property is damaged, I believe it is competent for them under the Landlord and Tenant Act to disclaim conditionally. If they do so, they are not liable in the meantime to pay, say, ground rent, but as soon as a cost-of-works payment is offered, if the tenant desires to keep on, then he becomes liable for the ground rent again, yet on account of the restrictions in regard to rebuilding, it is frequently impossible to make use of the cost-of-works payment for repairing the property. He would still be liable to pay his ground rent, although nothing had been done to the property, and no money has been paid him, and that seems to be most inequitable. I mentioned the mortgagor and the mortgagee, and it does seem to me that, with 2½ per cent. interest mounting up on the post-war payments, some advances could be made. As one of my hon. Friends rightly said the mortgagor is still liable to pay the building society, or whoever it may be, if he has other means, and he may have just sufficient means not to be in the category of those who can claim relief. In those cases the Government should consider making some payment now, because, as I have before pointed out, they can very well safeguard the money by insisting that the mortgagee, unless he has some very definite use for it, must reinvest it in War Savings Certificates or National War Bonds.
There are one or two other questions I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. There is one point upon which I have never been quite clear and have never had answers in the past. Before the war there were a large number of properties in this country which were rapidly going downhill, and some, in fact, had been condemned by the local authorities. We remember how local authorities were clearing away all kinds of dilapidated properties, or properties which they, at any rate, considered dilapidated, but

which would be very valuable at the present time for housing the population. In Sheffield, in which I was interested at the time, I remember seeing street after street in which houses had been pulled down and the bricks left on the site—the corporation often only paying site value—and many more houses which had been scheduled to come down. I should like to know whether war damage contribution is demanded from the owners of those properties which have been already condemned. Again, we have war damage contribution being levied upon houses which are rapidly going downhill, which had not been condemned before the war but are rapidly getting into the category which I have described. Is His Majesty's Government claiming war damage contribution in respect of these houses which at the end of the war will probably be automatically condemned by the local authorities? If so, it all seems very inequitable. I feel the time has arrived when we should look into all these matters.
Another point which I have brought up before and must raise again concerns the Schedule A contributions. I want to make my point in this way. We all know that the war damage contribution was based on the Schedule A assessment in 1939, and very often that is most inequitable now. Schedule A valuation was fixed rather high in many cases and since then has been lowered, but nevertheless war damage contribution is still based on the high assessment of 1939. That seems to be very unfair, especially when, perhaps, the property has been damaged.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): Order. The hon. Member is getting perilously near to the point of discussing new legislation, so we had better leave this point.

Dr. Thomas: I thank you, Mr. Williams. I did not think I should have got quite as far as I have done. There is one further point in connection with Schedule A assessment about which I should like to have an answer from the Financial Secretary. Supposing a property should be damaged next door to another property which has been demolished.—This is quite a different question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and need not worry you, because I believe I am in Order. Suppose there is a reduction in the assessment on the portion of the property which is damaged? If there


is a reduction in the Schedule "A" assessment, is the war damage contribution lowered accordingly? I should be glad if the Financial Secretary would clear up that point. I believe this Debate will have served a very useful purpose in showing the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that many of us are still very deeply perturbed about the inequalities and injustices which still remain under these Acts. I hold that His Majesty's Government ought to take these matters in hand and put them right so that the small and thrifty property owners are not pressed upon too much. If the morale of that class of people is depressed too far, when the war is over they will feel hopeless, and I need not describe in detail to the Financial Secretary what deplorable results may then ensue.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): It is only by leave of the House that I can speak a second time. If the House is agreeable to that course, I will try to answer some of the numerous conundrums that have been put to me from all sides of the House. I should like to say in the first instance that I am in agreement with the hon. Member who last spoke that this has been a useful Debate. I think we are all conscious of the fact that there are a large number of property owners in this country to whom these matters are of vital interest, and I was very glad to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said on the subject of property owners in general. I am very conscious myself of the burdens upon property owners, being one of them, and I know exactly what one feels like at this time of the year when one receives demands for war damage contribution. There was a time before the war when one suffered only from Income Tax demands and demands for rates, but now there is this additional burden, which is very heavy.
Despite that, I would remind hon. Members that it is not the War Damage Act which causes the hardship, but the war. The Act has done what it could to remove some of those hardships. I am certain that all owners of property are grateful to His Majesty's Government for introducing the War Damage Act, although I am aware that legislation of this kind is bound to be somewhat imperfect. At least, we have done our very

best to deal with this most difficult subject. It was only in the earlier part of this year that we introduced an amending Bill, during the Second Reading of which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that he thought that any good building which was damaged would probably be eligible for a cost-of-works payment. Since that Act was passed, the War Damage Commission have been making considerable progress with the classification of damaged property, and I understand that there is no reason at all to suppose that the expectation expressed by my right hon. Friend will be falsified. There is no doubt that the great majority of cases will be cost-of-works cases. In connection with that matter, I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans) for having drawn the attention of the House to the answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to his Question to-day. As it was a written answer the Question did not obtain as much publicity as it might otherwise have done, so I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for giving the House an opportunity of hearing the terms of the answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent to him.
My hon. Friend the Senior Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis), who spoke first in the Debate, congratulated, as did also other hon. Members, the War Damage Commission. I am glad they did so, because I think the work of the Commission has been done extremely well under difficult circumstances. I should like to think that in their congratulations my hon. Friends were also including the Inland Revenue staff, who had the difficult task of collecting the contributions. I must confess that of the two tasks theirs is, in some ways, the more difficult.
My hon. Friend went on to say that there were certain alterations still needed in the law, and he told the House, as he has told us on some occasions before, about the difficulties of Schedule A valuations. On the primary point which he made that the Schedule A basis involves anomalies, the answer is that that was fully recognised when the legislation was passed by this House, but we did not find any better means to deal with the situation, and therefore we were obliged to take the basis which seemed on the whole to the House to be the least unsatisfactory.
In matters of this kind we cannot unfortunately get perfection. We adopted what we thought was the least unsatisfactory solution. I still would be interested to hear from any Member of the House of any better solution of that problem. I quite agree that the contribution is not scientifically related to the value, or nicely calculated as between one individual and another, but it is better, on the whole, to adopt a well-known and tried system. On this basis it provides, by and large, a substantial and adequate contribution from property owners, and that is the section of the community who of course will receive the payment of compensation. My hon. Friend the Senior Member for Southampton passed on to other criticisms and criticised Schedule A assessments themselves. I do not think that in this connection there would be any advantage in my trying to deal with the whole question of Schedule A assessments. It is quite clear that an assessment which is made for one purpose and which has been adapted for use in another connection may present difficulties and have disadvantages. But, after all, this legislation was reviewed by Parliament only in the early part of this year, and the 1943 amending Act was passed by this House with very general assent.

Mr. craven-Ellis: This House does not always appreciate the significance of what it is passing. [Interruption.] That is a fact. I have had an example to-day when the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health made a reply in which she placed herself behind what this House had done. If this House had known at the time that the implementation or carrying out of that particular Clause of the Bill in question would operate as it has done, this House would never have allowed it to pass.

Mr. Assheton: I am afraid that I cannot accept that argument, because the House had the advantage of hearing from the hon. Member himself his views on the matter, and it cannot be said that the House was in any ignorance as to the effect of its legislation. My hon. Friend then went on to raise this question of setting off claims against contributions and referred to an answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had given in the sense that in value payment cases collection of the

contribution charged on the damaged property is suspended and that the amount due would be ultimately recovered by a reduction of the value payment in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He went on to say that where a cost-of-works payment is appropriate the law allows deferment in collection so long as the property is unfit by reason of damage. I was not able quite to understand my hon. Friend's point, because when the Chancellor was making his statement it would appear that my right hon. Friend was referring to value payments and cost-of-work payments. I will to-morrow read in Hansard what my hon. Friend did say, and if I have anything to add to that point, I will let him know.
My hon. Friend referred, and so did my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hornsey, to the Prime Minister's pledge. The Prime Minister made a pledge on this subject; at any rate, he spoke in debate in this House. These were the words he used on 21st November, 1940:
I feel that because one man's home is smashed, that should be no special misfortune to him and that all whose homes are not broken up should stand in with him as long as the need may last; and even if all the homes of the country be levelled then we shall still be found standing together to build them up again after the fighting is over."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1940; col. 24, Vol. 367.]
I suggest to hon. Members that the principles enunciated in those words are in fact fulfilled by the legislation which this House has passed.

Captain Gammans: Will my hon. Friend read out what the Prime Minister said on 5th September?

Mr. Assheton: I regret I have not got it with me. If my hon. and gallant Friend has it I will be very glad to read it. There is no doubt at all that the principles which the House had in mind have been faithfully carried out in this legislation. It seems to me that the arrangement is not one which is unfair. It seems to me a reasonable compromise between the interest of property owners on the one hand and general taxpayers on the other. Strictly speaking, it might have been argued by some people, I suppose, that it would be wrong to bring in the general taxpayer to bear a share of the cost of compensation for damage done to one specially selected class of property. One


man may elect to invest his money in bricks and mortar; another may have invested it in something quite different, for example, some business which owing to the war has been concentrated or closed down, and he may have received no compensation at all. Therefore the fact that the taxpayer is contributing, and contributing very handsomely, to the property owners in this connection seems to me to be a complete justification and an implementation of the Prime Minister's pledge.
I was asked by my hon. Friend about the total cost of the damage. More than one Member raised that point. I cannot tell them what the total cost of damage is—it is not known—but it was announced some months ago by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that £100,000,000 had already been paid out by the War Damage Commission, and the War Damage Commission pays out when repairs are done. If hon. Members care to walk up and down the country and see the damage which is not yet repaired, they will be able to form for themselves some sort of estimate. If the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey, after thinking that over, comes to the conclusion that he is raising a question which is somewhat academic, I do not think that I shall feel disposed to disagree with him.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: This is an important point. We do not want to deceive the public more than they have been misled. The Financial Secretary said that the general taxpayer was contributing generously. In point of fact, the general taxpayer so far as war damage is concerned has not contributed a penny piece. In fact, the contribution for the property owners themselves has not yet reached its maximum. Until it has exceeded £200,000,000 the general taxpayer is not called on to make any contribution whatever.

Mr. Assheton: The House knows and the hon. Member knows well what the true position is, that property owners contribute £200,000,000 by five yearly instalments, and the Government, that is, the taxpayer, contributes the next £200,000,000, and thereafter they go fifty-fifty. I say that that is a handsome contribution by the taxpayer.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: But he has not paid anything yet. He has not been called upon to pay anything.

Mr. Assheton: I would point out that the War Damage Commission has already paid out a great deal more than it has received, and if that has not come out of the taxpayers' pocket, I do not know whose pocket it has come out of. The hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey raised once again the case of the mortgagor and the mortgagee. I do not think there is any real value in arguing all that out again. I know that there are arguments on both sides. The House went into it on more than one occasion and came to a decision. All that I can say is that that decision is one which has been made and which is being carried out. I did agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey when he said it was desirable to state in the House the hope that nothing will be done to put about the notion that it was not a desirable thing to build property and that it would not prove to be a useful and remunerative form of enterprise. I hope that in this country it will always be a useful and profitable thing to build houses for people to live in. I think that the people who criticise property owners often have not thought the thing out as carefully as they might have done.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) suggested that we were not getting on with repairs as quickly as we might. That is not a matter I can answer for, speaking on behalf of the War Damage Commission or the Board of Inland Revenue, but the hon. Member, of course, knows the great difficulties of labour and materials at the present time. I know that every one of my right hon. Friends in the Government are only too anxious to enable progress to be made as soon as these conditions are at all modified. I think I have dealt with most of the points raised. I am not quite certain—

Mr. Bellenger: Will the Financial Secretary say something about releasing some value payment where the owners of property have their property mortgaged?

Mr. Assheton: That is a point that has been raised before. I have no reason to give the hon. Member much encouragement. As he knows, there are two classes of payment, cost-of-works payment, in which case his suggestion would not be appropriate, and that is going to apply to the great majority of cases


throughout the country; there are then the value payment cases, and as far as value payment is concerned they are not being made at the present time.

Mr. Bellenger: What is the reason?

Mr. Assheton: The reason is that it was considered desirable in accordance with the general policy of the Government that that money should not yet be placed in the hands of property owners and that it should be available for use in repairing and restoring property in the country, and if a considerable amount of value payments were made now, it is always possible that that money would not find its way to the purpose for which it was intended.

Mr. Silkin: Is there the same objection to the payment of interest? If property has been damaged and interest were received, it would help those concerned to pay their mortgages.

Mr. Assheton: I appreciate that point. It has, however, been considered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the decision made stands. I am quite prepared to represent to him the view which my hon. Friends have put to me to-day. I am grateful to hon. Members who have raised these various points. If I have not dealt with them all fully I shall be glad to deal with them more fully on a later occasion. I will read the Debate to-morrow, and if I have left out any point I will write to the hon. Members concerned.

NEWSPAPER "LA MARSEILLAISE"

Mr. Driberg: On 7th July an hon. and gallant Member asked the Minister of Information a Question about the French paper "La Marseillaise," published in this country. He drew attention to what he considered to be certain undesirable articles in it. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information replied that the licence for that newspaper had already been withdrawn, and added, in reply to a Supplementary Question, that it had come within the category of those papers which had been attempting to stir up discord among the United Nations. I then asked a Supplementary Question as follows:
In view of the reports published this morning of the method by which this paper was suspended, are we to take it that the

Paper Control is now used as an instrument of censorship?
Parliamentary Secretary replied:
Not at all. The Regulations governing the use of paper were drawn up in order to prevent the wasteful use of paper, and I should imagine this action has been taken in accordance with that purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1943; col. 2086, Vol. 390.]
Those two answers seemed to me to be somewhat self-contradictory and not very satisfactory, because, in the light of the Parliamentary Secretary's first supplementary answer, this clearly was, whether justified or not—and I am not saying anything about that at the moment—a case of political censorship. Equally clearly, in view of the method by which it was applied, the Paper Control was used as the instrument of that censorship. So I cannot understand why the Parliamentary Secretary replied, "Not at all," when I asked whether it had been so used. In raising this matter now I am really asking for information rather than offering criticism. I should genuinely like to have this whole rather obscure matter of the foreign language newspapers, published in this country by our Allies, cleared up in several of its aspects.
I do not want to say much about the specific case of "La Marseillaise" because, for one thing, it was a newspaper which I did not very often see. I am told that one of its offences was that it published articles mischievously criticising America and the American Government; and, if so, I agree that that is in general principle a very deplorable thing indeed. I do not hold with newspapers criticising any of our Allies in harmful terms. [Interruption.] I did not read any of the articles myself, so I merely say that I agree that, in principle, that is a deplorable thing. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions about the suspension. First, was the newspaper given any kind of warning, as I think newspapers have been given in the past, and, second, has the Minister now dealt equally drastically, or, to use his own word, "toughly," with those Polish newspapers which, at about the same time, or a little earlier, were also publishing matter calculated to cause ill-feeling among the United Nations—publishing very violent articles criticising the Soviet Unon and so forth? I refer both to the Polish newspapers which operated under licence from the British Government and to those, far more


scurrilous, which were published independently, on such paper as they could get hold of.
I am more interested in the general issues raised in these supplementary questions and answers than in the specific case of "La Marseillaise" because in the last year or two, on a number of occasions, the Minister of Supply has reiterated his determination not to be in any way a censor, in regard to the operation of the Paper Control, which comes under his Ministry. Again and again hon. Members who wanted things suppressed have asked the Minister of Supply if he could not withdraw the paper allocation from this or that publication, and again and again he has refused to do so. For instance, on 9th June last year the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply said, in reply to a request of this kind:
I should be loath to become the censor of pamphlets."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1942; col. 938, Vol. 380.]
On May 20th last year the Minister of Production said:
The duty of wholesale censorship cannot be placed on the Production Departments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th May, 1942; col. 232, Vol. 380.]
On 22nd July last year—and this is, I think, an especially clear instance of what I am saying—a Member invited the Minister of Supply to cancel the allotment of paper to a periodical which he claimed was impeding the war effort. I will quote from Hansard:
Sir A. DUNCAN: … The question whether there are grounds of policy for refusing to allow the periodical to continue is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Sir J. LUCAS: Has the Minister any power to stop the supply of paper if he thinks that its use is wrong?
Sir A. DUNCAN: I have no such
power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1942; col. 37, Vol. 382.]
Well, this is how "La Marseillaise" was suppressed last month. I quote from "The Times" newspaper:
The Minister of Supply yesterday revoked the paper licence granted for the publication of the De Gaullist newspaper 'La Marseillaise'.
The Minister said a year ago:
I have no such power.
Has he now acquired or been granted such power? Even without the Ministry of Supply, there were two Departments

exercising powers of restriction or censorship over the Press, the Ministry of Information and the Home Department, which, as we know from instances which have occurred, can proceed against newspapers by warning them, or by immediately suspending them, under Regulations 2D or 2C. There may be good reasons for granting the power of censorship to still another Department. It may be convenient for the Government to use the Paper Control in this way as an instrument of censorship, but, whether the Minister of Supply exercises this power only on the advice of the Minister of Information or whether he does it off his own bat, it cannot any longer, I submit, be claimed that the Paper Control is not used as an instrument of censorship. But this is contrary to expressed Government policy, and I think we are entitled to ask the reasons for the change of policy.
But this I must add. If the Minister of Supply and the Paper Control no longer regard paper, so to speak, simply as paper—mechanically, without regard to the merit or demerit of what is printed on it—surely the Minister will have in future to give more satisfactory replies to those hon. Members who complain that paper is often not available for publications designed to assist the war effort although it is still available in very large quantities for all sorts of publications which do not help the war effort at all—pacifist, crypto-Fascist, anti-Semitic and all the other innumerable crank publications which we see. One of the commonest things that one hears from hon. Members of the House is their complaint about the torrent of pamphlets, memoranda, manifestos, and so on which reaches all of us by every mail.
We have often asked, "Can anything be done about this?" and have been told in effect that nothing can be done. Nothing could in the past be done, but now, since the Paper Control is being used in this way, the Minister of Supply might have to undertake the difficult and unenviable task of drawing up what I may call a list of priorities in rubbish. I do not envy him the task, but I think he has been let in for it by this new development. I need hardly give more than one or two instances of the kind of thing about which I have been speaking. There is an admirable periodical called the "Aeroplane Spotter," which is very widely read in


A.T.C. squadrons, by boys who hope to go into the Air Force and by all sorts of mechanically-minded and air-minded youth. That suddenly had to cut down its circulation by 50 per cent., approximately, because some of its paper was withdrawn. There was a small booklet of trigonometrical tables, for a, further edition for which the paper could not be found, although it was much in request by precision engineers and in factories engaged on war production. There are medical and educational books, and books of all kinds of a valuable nature, for which you cannot now get paper, and yet, as we know, our mail-bags are swollen and our book-stalls are laden with every sort of salacious and seditious tripe. I am not at all suggesting that the Minister ought to suppress all these various minority views, however deplorable they may seem to us, in one direction or another. On the contrary, it is very desirable that free jobbing printers should still have their allocation of paper for printing pamphlets, posters, leaflets and all the different kinds of material they do print. There will be difficulties in the way of drawing up any list of priorities because tastes and opinions differ so widely. I imagine there would be very few hon. Members of this House, except perhaps the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) who would object to as much paper as possible being allocated to a book of which I received a review copy yesterday, the new volume of the Prime Minister's speeches. On the other hand, as I say, literary tastes do differ, and while the lieutenant-colonel about whom I had a Question down to-day objects very strongly to that delectable strip-cartoon "Jane," the War Office and the India Office and the Admiralty take all the steps they can to circulate it to the Forces. So obviously the Minister would have a very difficult task; but I cannot believe that the difficulties are insuperable, and an anomaly as glaring as this, and as patent to everybody, should, I suggest, not be allowed to remain ungrappled with.
This is not the time to deal with the whole question of the paper supply for books, but I would like to say parenthetically that I was not at all satisfied with the answer that I received yesterday from the Minister of Supply, when he said that, generally speaking, only paper licensed for book production may be used for that purpose. "Generally speaking" is a phrase that does not

carry a particularly great significance if you do not define what the permitted exceptions to the general rule are. I would like to ask the Ministry of Supply one or two questions which they can brood over in the Recess, and, if there has not been some substantial improvement by the end of the Recess, I shall hope to raise this matter again. I would like to ask the Ministry of Supply how it is that, despite the declared policy of that Ministry and of the Board of Trade, new publishers are still springing up frequently. Where do they get the paper? Obviously, as the Ministry know, they get it from the jobbing printers who have free paper allocated to them. Why is it that these jobbing printers disregard the Ministry's instructions or requests? What check is kept on the use of the paper allocated to these jobbing printers? Is any check kept at all, to see that they do not supply it to the new mushroom book-publishers who are springing up?
As I say, that is all in parenthesis. I return, in conclusion, to my original point, the question of "La Marseillaise" and the foreign language papers, about which I should be very grateful to have one or two answers from the Minister of Information. When I was asking my Supplementary Question on 7th July an hon. Member, who I do not think is here to-day, interrupted to say, "There is a war on." The interruption, though hackneyed and infantile, was not a completely useless reminder. It is, of course, just because there is a war on that we have these problems of Allied newspapers published here. It is because there is a war on that we are troubled by these problems of censorship; and although there is a war on—or even, perhaps, still more, because there is a war on, it is the duty of Members of Parliament to watch with vigilance all the operations of censorship and restriction and to assist in defining their proper limits.

B.B.C. (CONSTITUTION)

Major Petherick: I intervene at this moment, because the matter which I wish to raise is connected with the British Broadcasting Corporation, and as I understand that the Minister is going to reply to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), I do not intend to delay the House for more than about five minutes. I certainly do not wish to go into the


details of the policy of the B.B.C. or whether Priestley is or is not a good man to have about the place. Personally, I think Priestley is enough to bore you into Blimpery. The point upon which I wish to concentrate is that of the present constitution of the B.B.C., and I wish to suggest a way in which it might be changed for the better. Not only many Members of this House but a large section of the public, and indeed, many members of the B.B.C. itself, are worried about its present constitution. It is not a question of whether the general tinge of the B.B.C. is blue, as some hon. Members think, or whether it is too pink, as some hon. Members on this side of the House are inclined to believe. It is clearly a question of the constitution itself.
The present Council of the B.B.C. have, over a period of time, deserved very well of the country. They do their best against most appalling difficulties but I believe their troubles are partly due to the constitution itself which, in my opinion, is unsound. This is a corporation set up by an Act of Parliament and its activities cannot really be effectively challenged in this House; there is, in fact, no control whatever over the general organisation. It is true that by means of Questions and occasionally on Supply Days, if sufficient latitude is allowed, it is possible to discuss the B.B.C. in a general way but the Minister of Information has said time after time in this House—quite rightly, I think—that he has no control over the B.B.C., except in respect of foreign news. In general, I do not think that is right. I do not believe there ought to be corporations in this country over which Parliament, practically speaking, has no control. It is true that it is possible, by means of the Press and in other ways, to bring a certain amount of influence to bear on the B.B.C., but that is not enough. Parliament itself ought to have some say in the general control of policy. What are the alternatives suggested for the present situation? Broadly, they are two. First, to nationalise the B.B.C. completely which I firmly believe would be disastrous.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): That Question would be out of Order now.

Major Petheriek: I am sorry. The second alternative is to hand it over to private enterprise which, for other reasons, would also be unsatisfactory. Who are, in fact, the ultimate owners and beneficiaries of the B.B.C.? They are, obviously, the British public. How are the British public to make their voice effectively heard in regard to the general conduct of that organisation, which is carried on for their sole benefit? Under the present constitution of the B.B.C., I understand that it has a council of seven members who are appointed for five years. They can be re-appointed and not infrequently have been in the past. I maintain that the constitution might very well be altered. I am not suggesting legislation but I am suggesting the possibility of a change which might be made in the future. The real beneficiaries, as I have said, are the British public. Would it not be possible to adopt a change in this direction, that the B.B.C. should present an annual report to Parliament, and that for two days in every year Parliament should be obliged to discuss the general conduct of the B.B.C.? Then in addition to that, instead of the council consisting of seven members, it should consist of nine, of whom three would retire each year. During the two days' Debate on the general conduct of the B.B.C., the question of the new directors should be considered. I believe if that suggested constitution were adopted—I am not advocating any legislation—it would—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we cannot change a constitution of this sort without legislation.

Major Petherick: I understand the difficulty in which I am placed. I am only asking for consideration of the present constitution of the B.B.C. and, in doing so, I am trying to suggest one respect in which it is rather unsatisfactory and possibilities that may occur to the Minister's mind on how the position might be remedied. But I have nothing more to say now. I could probably put it more elaborately and be much more in Order, in conversation with my right hon. Friend later. Perhaps he will allow me to talk to him for a few minutes. I do not ask for a reply now, but I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would consider what I have tried, with some difficulty, to put before him.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: If we are not allowed to ask Questions about the internal management of the B.B.C., and cannot throw out suggestions for altering its status, would you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, tell us under what conditions it is possible to discuss the B.B.C. at all?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I allowed an illustration but when hon. Members go into details such as changing the number of directors, then that is a matter for legislation. I think the original Ruling I gave was quite enough, because anything dealing with legislation is out of Order on the Adjournment. Further Questions, as to when legislation can be raised, raise a matter with which I cannot deal now.

FOREIGN NEWSPAPERS (CONTROL)

Mr. G. Strauss: I would like the Minister of Information to give me some answers to points which have worried me as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) and others in this House. I, too, have asked various Questions of the Minister of Supply in regard to the suppression of newspapers, and I would be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would give a Categorical reply as to who is responsible for the suppression of foreign newspapers in this country?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): I can give a reply to that straight away. I take absolute responsibility.

Mr. Strauss: That is very satisfactory; we know now at whom we can fire Questions and to whom we can make complaints in the future, when we are worried. I would also like the Minister to tell us on exactly what principles he proceeds before he decides to suppress a paper? Are there different principles in operation in regard to foreign newspapers as compared to British newspapers? As the House is fully aware there is no political censorship of papers in this country. A paper can publish what it likes, as long as it does not state anything which may be dangerous from a security point of view. This arrangement has worked very satisfactorily. But when it comes to foreign newspapers, does the Minister of Information say that there are special regulations

in operation and that if such a paper says anything which, in his view, is politically harmful, then that paper is liable to be suppressed? If that is so, then I would ask him to give us an assurance that he will not exercise his powers of political censorship except in the most extreme case; because it is absolutely essential that we should maintain the principle in regard to all papers, not only British, that the Press is free within the essential limits laid down by the war and requirements of security.
In my view it does no harm if papers, whether British or foreign, make honest comments—so long as they are not deliberately mischievous, and it may be difficult sometimes to differentiate—which may be critical of an Allied Government. I have never taken the view which I think is taken by the Minister of Information, that it is undesirable that English papers should be critical of the American Government or American people. American newspapers and American politicians are often critical of this country and of what we do over here, and in a democracy, I believe that this public expression of opinion is altogether desirable. If there are elements in the country which are suspicious or doubtful about the rightness or policy of another democratic country, it is far better that their views should be expressed publicly, so that they can be answered publicly. In the long run, there is a far better chance of getting international understanding if criticism is publicly expressed, so that it can be publicly answered, than there is if criticism is suppressed. I hope the Minister will tell us that he will not suppress a paper or take any action against a paper, English or foreign, if it merely ventures to criticise the policy or attitude of some foreign Government. That, I think, is exceedingly important and I hope the Minister can give us an assurance along those lines. I also hope that lie will bear in mind the great importance of maintaining the reputation of a free Press in this country. Our reputation for maintaining our freedoms has been a great asset to this country; we are all proud that we have been able to maintain them in such a remarkable degree. But if a policy is adopted of stopping all sorts of papers because they happen to say something about which there is disagreement or about which we may get a complaint from a foreign country, then, to


some extent, our reputation will be damaged. I hope therefore the Minister will be able to tell us very definitely what the principles are on which he has proceeded or is likely to proceed in future before he suppresses any newspaper at all and particularly whether he will give a foreign newspaper adequate warning before he takes any drastic steps to suppress it.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): I have not the slightest complaint to make about this Debate. I am encouraged by the opportunity of talking to the House about anything concerned with the Ministry of Information because the House has ceased to have any interest in our Department. We are now less exciting than the British Museum. The House has not even taken the trouble to discuss our Estimates. Of all the dull jobs in the Government the Ministry of Information is becoming the dullest so that any discussion in Parliament gives us some encouragement because we feel that the House is still in a mild way interested in its old favourite, at any rate its old whipping boy. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) asked me if the Polish Press was better behaved. The Polish Press is better behaved. I can give no guarantee for the continuance of its good behaviour—

Mr. Driberg: What I actually asked was whether the right hon. Gentleman had dealt equally drastically with the Polish Press.

Mr. Bracken: We were very severe indeed in dealing with one Polish paper which published an article which in our Government's view was likely to create disunity between the United Nations.

Mr. Driberg: Was it suppressed?

Mr. Bracken: No. The editor was sacked, which is even worse.
I am surprised at the hon. Member's attitude to pamphlets. Some of the greatest journalism has been done in the form of pamphlets. Dean Swift's best political writings were in pamphlet form and the famous William Hickey wrote pamphlets about Warren Hastings. It is surprising that a journalist of the hon. Member's profound Liberal principles should suddenly want pamphlets suppressed. The pamphlet is the poor man's method of stating his case in public. The rich man's method of putting his case

across to the public is either to own a large newspaper or if he likes to spend a great deal of money on advertising his point of view. I am amazed that a journalist of the hon. Member's quality should now approach the pamphlet which in my opinion is the most effective form of propaganda if you can get anyone to read it and ask for it to be shut down in favour of a great machine controlled perhaps by the party opposite or by some Press lord.

Mr. Driberg: I do not and I never said so.

Mr. Bracken: It is a great falling off. The hon. Member himself is a great pamphleteer. His pamphlet on the Fall of Tobruk had a vital effect in the election at Maldon. It was due to his genius and without it he might not have been able to start this Debate to-day.

Mr. Driberg: If I may try to reply concisely to the right hon. Gentleman's three-pronged drive against me, I think it was generally agreed that the anonymous leaflet to which the right hon. Gentleman refers came rather too late to influence more than a few hundreds or a thousand or two votes one way or the other. In my speech I made no attack whatever on pamphlets. I specifically said that they should not be suppressed.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member wanted me to encourage the notion of a closer inspection of the printing plants of the country so that highly controversial matter should not be published. When he reads his speech I think he will agree that my interpretation of it is accurate.
He asked me a question about the Ministry of Supply. I should like to answer it but I do not know what new publishers are being set up under these arrangements. I am sure however that the Minister of Supply will look into the point. It is important because it would not be playing fair with the whole arrangement made between the Government and publishers if new publishers were allowed to start in war time books which are more profitable than the normal products of the average publishing house.
I want to say a word or two on the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick). I have to be very careful about my approach to this matter, because I think Mr. Deputy-Speaker


would intervene very quickly if I followed him into some of the interesting topics that he raised. He is right in saying that the British public own the B.B.C. But they also own the Navy and I have yet to learn that the House of Commons wishes to run the Navy. If it had conducted it in all its operations during the war I do not think the Navy would have been quite as successful.

Major Petherick: The Royal Navy can be discussed on the Navy Estimates, and if the House withheld the money it would have to be disbanded. That does not apply to the B.B.C.

Mr. Bracken: I agree, because no one knows where the B.B.C. stands. I do not. But the conduct of the B.B.C. is thoroughly well discussed at Question time and in various Committees upstairs. In fact it seems to me to have acquired an interest here which makes the Ministry of Information jealous. We wish it was more interested in the affairs of the institution for which I have to take responsibility. The charter of the B.B.C. is approaching its end and I think hon. Members would do a great deal of good in pressing for a complete examination of the whole set up of the B.B.C. That is a thing that can be done at any time through the usual channels. I do not wish to discuss it again to-day beyond once again saying that though it makes a great many mistakes it is the finest broadcasting organisation in the world. In my considered judgment the European service is a finer broadcasting organisation than the wildest optimist could have hoped for at the beginning of the war. It has fulfilled our best hopes. It is a splendid institution. I get worried when I hear criticisms of the B.B.C. because the staff is devoted and feels acutely when it is held up to ridicule in the House or elsewhere. I think the B.B.C. has done a splendid war job but it is not perfect and my hon. and gallant Friend is right in saying that the House of Commons could quite easily set up some form of investigation as to whether its constitution could be improved. It may be it is perfect and may not be capable of improvement. I am not adopting that viewpoint, but no harm could be done by Parliament examining into every monopoly.
The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) asked me a number of question about the foreign Press. He made one remark that I wish to take notice

of at once when he said I had some notion that British newspapers should not criticise America. I do not know where he derived that information from. I think the Americans, like the English, do not wish to be mollycoddled about the feeling in the respective countries regarding any policy which our Governments adopt. I think nothing could be better than publicity. It is the basis of public life. I have never suggested for one second that the British Press should never criticise any actions by the American authorities or that the American Press should not criticise aspects of our affairs which they disagree with. Reading as I do very carefully the American Press and the British Press, I am bound to say that both sections of the Press show a healthy capacity for criticism, and long may they continue to do so.

Mr. G. Strauss: A little time ago, according to an announcement which I think the right hon. Gentleman made in the House, there was an extension of Press censorship on both sides of the Atlantic by which it was agreed that nothing should be cabled from one side to the other which was strongly critical of the war effort of the other side. I cannot remember the exact words, but it was along those lines, and I objected to it at the time. It may have been wider than America and this country. Can the right hon. Gentleman say that the situation has been modified?

Mr. Bracken: The position was that I took powers in this House, which I felt were very necessary, to prevent the export from England of any matter which was likely to create disharmony between the United Nations. That covered all the United Nations, and I got very extensive powers when I asked for them. They have not been used with any great illiberality. It has not often been necessary to use them, but they were necessary in view of some statements which were published by certain newspapers and which were of the greatest possible help to the Axis propagandists.
Let us get back to the foreign papers here in London. Some hon. Members are apparently unaware of the curious, not to say privileged, position of the newspapers published in foreign, languages in this country. In August, 1940, British newspaper and magazine publishers were forbidden to start any paper without first


obtaining a licence from the British Government. Licences have been rarely granted. Even so, a large, not to say excessive, number of foreigners have succeeding in obtaining facilities to start journals which are more viewspapers than newspapers. Many of them are nothing but propaganda sheets, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon says, and some of them are edited by persons without the slightest sense of responsibility who use them to air their views against the Allies of Great Britain. Many of these papers are exported or smuggled abroad, and they provide most useful fodder for Axis propaganda. Some of our Allies and many Members of this House have reminded me that these mischief-making newspapers are printed on paper controlled by the British Government, and it is complained against us that we are fostering propaganda which creates disharmony between the United Nations. I must say that I am surprised that I am not more often reminded that it is scandalous that our sailors should be asked to take incredible risks and undergo great hardships in bringing paper into this country and that that paper should be used to injure the war effort of the United Nations.
I therefore consider it perfectly proper to withhold supplies of paper obtained through an intermediary of the British Government from foreigners who are using it to foment discord between the United Nations. Before I take action I must be provided with evidence of consistent malicious intent. The Government have no desire to prevent free comment, and papers published in foreign languages which are conducted with a due sense of responsibility will not be interfered with.
About "La Marseillaise," I should be wanting in frankness were I not to say that that paper did little to honour the obligations of its privileged position; it was often most irresponsibly edited. But even if it had been conducted by a staff which showed a real sense of responsibility, there was, in my opinion, no place for it in London after the leaders of the Fighting French movement had transferred themselves to North Africa. With the setting-up of the Committee of National Liberation in North Africa I could see no justification for British paper being used to publish a Fighting French daily newspaper in London. North Africa

is the proper place in which to publish that paper, and any help we can give to establish it in North Africa, by way of giving opportunities for its having a London correspondent, etc., we shall give. As the Fighting French had been responsible for the establishment of "La Marseillaise" our resident Minister in North Africa was invited to convey the decision about that paper to Monsieur Massigli, who concurred in it.
It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Mr. Bracken: When by the force of arms of the United Nations the Axis is driven out of the territories of the many foreign countries whose Governments are resident in London—and I hope we shall see the progressive development of the redemption of European soil, or the clearing of European soil, from the Axis Powers—I very much hope that all these Governments will take their papers back to their own countries. I have treated them, I think, with the greatest tolerance, but at the same time I should never attempt, as the hon. Member for Lambeth has done, to compare them with the British Press. The British Press is under no obligations to the British Government. There is no compulsory censorship here, and we know who owns those British newspapers, but these other papers which are published by the privilege of the Government must accept the conditions of their privilege, and if they wish to stir up trouble between the United Nations I say frankly that I shall ask the Paper Controller to withdraw their paper.
The hon. Member for Maldon says, "Why do you not proceed in another way? Why not prosecute or do something of that kind?" I say "No" I have to sign a request to the Paper Controller to give them paper, and I do that trusting that they are going to behave with some responsibility in relation to the conduct of the war. I do not object to fair criticism of this country or of the British Government or foreign Governments, but if they use the facilities we have given to create trouble, and I get telegrams from our Missions abroad complaining about these papers and saying


they could not have been published in England were it not for the Ministry of Information obtaining the paper for them, I have a right to say that in the event of those papers helping the enemy by stirring up trouble between the United Nations I shall go to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and say, "Will you kindly withdraw their paper." It may be said that that is contrary to any of the statements that have been made in the House of Commons before, but I have certainly never attempted to censor these papers. The best possible control I can obtain over some of these illiberal sheets which are creating so much trouble is to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to withdraw the facilities which he has given to them at my request, and I do not think there is anything wrong with that. It does not affect the freedom of the British Press. I have strong views about the freedom of the Press, but I think the British Press have also very strong views about the goings on of some of these papers published in foreign languages. From every side of the House I have been asked to deal with these papers, and I took what I thought was the best method, but it seems that I cannot please everybody.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are starting no precedents that will affect the freedom of the British Press and—and this is a point of importance—that we are not going to be illiberal with these papers published by foreigners in this Ill country. There are some distinguished foreign journalists here, and I am glad they are in London, and I think some of them run exceptionally good papers. They need never look over their shoulders and wonder what the views of the censor will be, because I have made it crystal clear that the only time I will interfere with any papers is when it is proved to me that they have followed a consistent policy of trying to create disharmony between the United Nations. I have made that very clear to them, and they know the terms upon which their privilege continues. I do not personally expect much further trouble from them, but any Minister of Information who makes a prophecy about avoiding trouble is himself looking for it, so with that I shall sit down.

GERMAN PROPAGANDA, EIRE

Professor Savory: After the very eloquent address we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman I am very sorry to be the cause of forcing him to make another speech, but I have to draw the attention of the House to the answer he gave me to a Question which I put on 28th July with regard to the speech of von Ribbentrop which was circulated throughout Eire and sent to a very large number of—possibly all—the civil servants in Eire and which made a very considerable impression. A gentleman who is a civil servant who is loyal to His Majesty—a Government of Eire civil servant—sent me a copy of the speech, which I have here and asked me, in view of the tremendous effect it had had in Eire, whether I would not bring it to the notice of His Majesty's Government in order that some reply might be made. I am still only a very humble new Member and if I put this Question it was with the object of being helpful to His Majesty's Government, of whom I am the most devoted supporter. Therefore, I am bound to say that I was a little surprised when the right hon. Gentleman in his answer held me up to ridicule.
I am not thin-skinned, I am not hypersensitive and I should have made no objection to the right hon. Gentleman's answer had it been based upon fact, but as the answer was inaccurate—it was no fault of his and I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman in any way—I felt I must write him a letter and call his attention to this fact. I am sorry to have to inflict upon the House the letter I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, but I feel that in the circumstances I have no other alternative. This is what I wrote:
Knowing you as I do I am perfectly certain you would not consciously give the House of Commons inaccurate information but I Write to you as a matter of courtesy to let you know that you have been misinformed by your advisers with regard to the speech of von Ribbentrop referred to in my question No. 27 in Col. 1561 of Hansard, 28th July. While I fully admit that I may be wrong in considering that the speech which I heard broadcast in German from Berlin was one of the cleverest, most subtle and most persuasive pieces of propaganda which has ever come to my ears, I am not writing to you on a question merely of opinion, but on a question of fact, because you unwittingly made a statement to the House which is absolutely incorrect.
You said, in answer to my question: 'This fly-blown speech'"—


I admire the right hon. Gentleman's epithet—
'of Ribbentrop's prophesies … the maintenance of American neutrality'? Then again in reply to my supplementary question you said: 'I consider that this von Ribbentrop's speech prophesying American neutrality in this war … to be such rubbish that it is very useful propaganda.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1943; col. 1561, Vol. 391.]
The statement that the speech prophesied American neutrality is absolutely false; there is not a word in it, from beginning to end, which could possibly give this impression. In fact Herr von Ribbentrop said the exact opposite when he made the following remarks—

(1) 'The responsibility of this war and all its consequences, falls exclusively to President Roosevelt.'
(2) 'There arises the horrifying fact that President Roosevelt must be regarded as the last originator and thus the main culprit in this war.'
(3) 'I believe that the American catastrophe of 1929 will be child's play in comparison with what will ensue at the end of this Roosevelt war.'
(4) 'It is our conviction that President Roosevelt, through his Treaty with Soviet Russia, has laid the seed for one of the most devastating social catastrophies which will one day shock the American nation to its foundations and throw it back for decades.' I could quote many other similar passages.

You have unwittingly deceived the House of Commons by making a statement which is contrary to the truth. I felt, yesterday, that your reply put me in a very awkward and embarrassing position. It made it appear as if I had been very foolish to put this Question to you, whereas I only did so after the most careful consideration and after minutely studying this speech, which has been widely circulated in Eire and is well calculated to influence Irish mentality as I know it.
I of course hold the whole speech at your disposal if you care to read it, but as the House will be rising on Thursday next, 5th August, for the Summer Recess I must ask you, in justice to myself, to make a statement correcting your answer to my Question, and if you would care to suggest any Question of which I could give the Speaker private notice, I am, of course, only too ready to assist you in any way that I can.
I have the right hon. Gentleman's reply which I could read, but which I assume the right hon. Gentleman will wish to read to the House.

Mr. Bracken: No, I have not got it. Will the hon. Member read it?

Professor Savory: The letter says:
Thank you for your letter of 29th July about my answer in the House last Wednesday.

When I said that in his speech Ribbentrop prophesied 'the maintenance of American neutrality,' I had in mind a passage in which he announced his belief that the American people would call President Roosevelt and his Jewish advisers' to account for a policy which was trying to drag the American people into the war against their will.
Ribbentrop's speech was so muddled that anyone may be forgiven for interpreting it in several ways. If I had said that Ribbentrop prophesied 'the resumption of American neutrality' it would have made very little difference to the answer I gave you.
The phrase was not in any case intended as a summary of Ribbentrop's views about America and the war, and I find it hard to believe that it was taken as such. All his remarks about the United States are a welter of inconsistency; and this fantastic utterance about the President was only one of them.
So that the right hon. Gentleman after making a careful search through the speech could find only one sentence to support his view and that sentence he has not quoted correctly. What exactly von Ribbentrop said was this, and this is the passage to which the right hon. Gentleman must be referring, as it is the only passage of this kind.
I believe that the day will come when the American people will awaken and demand a reckoning from its President and his Jewish advisers.
Does that imply for a moment that he was prophesying that America would maintain its neutrality? I call attention to the date of the speech. It was as I quoted in my Question on the 26th November, 1941, and it will be remembered that America came into the war, at the time of Pearl Harbour, on 7th December of the same year. Consequently there is no question but that von Ribbentrop was perfectly well-informed. There is no question whatever of his prophesying American neutrality. Had I discovered anything of the kind in the speech, I should not have troubled the right hon. Gentleman with the Question, because this speech would have condemned itself. But I know the effect it has produced in Eire. Remember, these citizens of Eire have a censorship. They have no opportunity of hearing the truth, as you and I have. If they censor broadcasts from a Prince of their Church like Cardinal Hinsley, if they prevent Lenten pastorals by Roman Catholic Bishops from being published because they contain sentences favourable to this country, you can quite understand that a speech such as this was likely to have an immense effect in Eire.

Mr. Bracken: Will the hon. Member tell me again the date of the speech?

Professor Savory: I gave the date in the Question, and again in my letter. Here it is. It was the 26th November, 1941. The right hon. Gentleman may think it is out of date, but that speech is not out of date, because it traces the origin and history of the war from the German point of view. When I heard that speech in von Ribbentrop's own words—and one must admit that he speaks beautiful German. [Laughter.] I am referring to his pronunciation. If you compare him with Herr Hitler, his pronunciation is beautiful. Having heard this speech broadcast by him from Berlin, I confess I found it so eloquent that I had to keep calling the facts to my mind to force myself to answer it, and I said, "Mark my words, that speech will be distributed in Eire because of its abuse of Great Britain, which will be very acceptable in Southern Ireland." Sure enough, the speech has been sent through the post, according to my informant, in I do not know how many thousand copies but to a very large number of civil servants in Fire. The gentleman who sent it to me asked me to bring it to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and to ask him to make a reply.
I am going to be quite fair, and to allow the right hon. Gentleman more than half the available time for his reply. I remember a previous occasion when he was not given enough time, that he was very angry about it, so I will give him more than half. While I must frankly acquit the right hon. Gentleman of any intention of wishing to deceive the House, I must say that he made a misstatement of fact, and I asked him, in the most friendly way, in the most courteous letter I could write, to correct the inaccuracy from the Government bench. It is a most serious thing for a Minister of the Crown to make a mis-statement from the Government bench arid to refuse to correct it when asked to do so. Therefore, I felt that I was in honour bound, being a devoted servant of His Majesty's Government, to bring this matter to the attention of the House.

Mr. Bracken: First of all, I want to say that I hope the hon. Member is not a devoted servant of the Government. If a Member of this House is going to be a devoted servant of the Government—

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman must ask leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Bracken: Oh yes, I am obliged to my noble Friend. If a Member of this House is a devoted servant of the Government, he is not doing his duty to Parliament. No Member of this House should be a servant of the Government; he should be an independent critic of the Government, except for taking some notice of the Whips With regard to this speech, the B.B.C. gave me their monitoring of the broadcast, and there seems to be some theological difference about the use of words uttered by Herr von Ribbentrop. I am not prepared to say that the hon. Member is not a better German scholar than the B.B.C. monitor. But, as a very learned professor in Northern Ireland, what good does he think he does by calling attention to Ribbentrop's speech? Does he want to advertise the speech? It is a long narration, typical of Ribbentrop, that scaly creature, one of the worst types of person, a hanger-on of the Nazis, a man utterly untrustworthy, and a man whom even the Germans thought in the end was not a good Ambassador in London.
I remember that creature corning here with a great deal of money and opening up his Embassy here. He has smarmy manners. He is a master of duplicity. He led his master Hitler up the garden completely and said that England would not fight. If any persons in this House will believe anything that Herr von Ribbentrop says, honestly they should not be sent to mental specialists; they should be sent to veterinary surgeons. I object strongly to the advertisement given by my hon. Friend to Herr von Ribbentrop It may be that in the cloistered atmosphere of Belfast University, which is a very much better atmosphere than the one at the Ministry of Information, he feels that he must take notice of this speech. I have spent a large part of my life in the newspaper business and I can tell the hon and learned Gentleman—because he is truly learned—that Ribbentrop's speech will interest nobody. If I spent a farthing of British money in answering this stuff, all this abuse of the Jews and that Germany was tricked by England in this war—if I were to deal with those crusted lies and sent some pamphleteers over to Eire, I think the


House of Commons would be right in saying that I would not be doing my duty as Minister of Information and the Public Accounts Committee would not approve of any expenditure of that kind.
It would be a matter of the most complete indifference to me if Ribbentrop were to write an encyclopaedia containing the rot which this sort of speech contains. It would do us good and not harm. We are prepared, as we discovered from the Debate to-day, to let him go on publishing speeches. This sort of stuff is typically Ribbentrop; and to say that is one of the worst insults that could be directed against anybody. I am not prepared to answer it. It is absolutely futile.
It would be lunacy to answer him. My hon. Friend's interpretation of certain passages may be more accurate than that of the B.B.C. but if he has any spare time for reading in this war I ask him not to bruise his beautiful brain by reading the utterances of Ribbentrop, which are synthetic utterances, anyhow, written for him by someone in Berlin. To give us more of these Ribbentrop speeches and Goebbels broadcasts would be the greatest possible help to the British people here, and abroad, it would be much better than some of the stuff we

issue ourselves. In case my words were to reach these muddle-headed but depressed individuals, I would advise that they can send any amount of stuff they like into Eire and into England. The Ministry of Supply would be glad to get any amount of their pamphlets so that they could be pulped and used for more useful purposes. My hon. Friend said that I held him up to ridicule at Question time. I did not do any such thing. I have the highest admiration for my hon. Friend but I am surprised that he should have wasted his beautiful style on a creature so unworthy as Ribbentrop. Whether the B.B.C.'s report on Ribbentrop's rubbish is right or not, I am willing to accept the view of my hon. Friend that his interpretation is the more accurate. It does not matter to me in any way what Ribbentrop says or does. I hope that he goes on wasting German public money in pushing that sort of propaganda into Eire because it will do nothing but good.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn, put, and agreed
to.

Adjourned accordingly till the first Sitting Day after 19th September, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 4th August.